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.

Comments

Who did this damage more?

[tao_of_biology]

Whilre sincerely trying to stay neutral here...

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?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[pudge]

Please, stop. These forgeries were *so bad*, why would any Republicans have believed that CBS would not have caught them? Plus, CBS said their source (now revealed to be Burkett, a man who hates Bush and has advocated using dirty tricks against the Republicans) was very reluctant to turn these documents over to CBS, for a long time (apparently years). Saying this may have come from the GOP doesn't pass the smell test.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[(trb001)]

In defense of the people who exposed them, I heard about the memos wednesday and saw them first thing thursday morning...the first thing *I* thought was "These don't look real", and went off to find what other people were saying. I'm no forensic/typographic/handwriting expert, but there's been such a flurry of military documentation released in the past year due to the Kerry/Bush "Where Were You When..." drama, I've seen enough of them to think these looked strange.

Unfortunately, now that the monkey is off CBS' back, we may never find out who forged them...unless criminal charges are pressed on Burkett, he has no reason to talk. He's also a bit of a looney, this isn't the first time he's attacked Bush.

--trb

Re:Who did this damage more?

[joranbelar]

Please, stop. These forgeries were *so bad*, why would any Republicans have believed that CBS would not have caught them?

Uh, yeah...that's the idea. The Republicans manufacture some patently obvious forgeries and let them "slip" into CBS's hands. Once they're proven to be fake, the Democrats get smeared. Nice tactic, eh?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

60 Minutes didn't even think that telling us that Indian programmers are getting our jobs because they are *better* with their IIT degrees than we are with 10-20 years of experience was insulting. I think CBS can readily be dismissed as an actual news source- and was a long time ago by anybody watching these things. So no- I don't think whoever gave the documents to Burkett would have thought that their forgery would have been caught so quickly.

If it was the Republicans, then not only does it not pass the smell test- it means that Rove & Crew are so smart, so underhanded, that Kerry might as well concede the election today.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[QuantumRiff]

keep in mind this is 60 minutes.. remember their huge, explosive, damaging piece of work about side straddle gas tanks on pickups? Cause mountains of damage when they showed a video of a car ramming the rear side of the pickup, and the pickup exploded. Of course, later, people found out that the pickup had incendiary's to make sure to set the gas on fire!!!.. so then CBS was laughed at. Of course it was a real issue, they did sometimes go boom, but adding electronic sparklers to the car to make sure it did sure ruined any journalistic integrity they have in my view..

Re:Who did this damage more?

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Jeez man, that was NBC's Dateline, not CBS or 60 minutes.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

remember their huge, explosive, damaging piece of work about side straddle gas tanks on pickups?

Sigh. That was Dateline NBC. I'm as annoyed by this story as anybody, but can we please at least make a token effort to get the most basic facts right?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Blue Neon Head]

"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."

Not really. IANAL, but I believe that to claim libel, they'd have to show that CBS knew the documents were forged, and did it specifically to harm Bush. Unless some internal memos or whistle-blowers show otherwise, there's plenty of reason to believe CBS was merely sloppy in their work, not dishonest.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[mjpaci]

I gotta agree with you. It's like saying in American football, "Let them score so we can get the ball back."

Re:Who did this damage more?

[pudge]

Nice tactic, eh?

If by "nice" you mean entirely implausible, then yes. Very nice.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

Once they're proven to be fake, the Democrats get smeared. Nice tactic, eh?

That's what they want you to think...

Re:Who did this damage more?

[PatHMV]

IAAL, and I can tell you that, in a libel suit, President Bush would not have to prove that CBS "knew" that the documents were forged, but could simply prove that CBS published them "with reckless disregard" for the truth.

We now find out that CBS, who previously had the utmost confidence in their source, did not even trouble to learn who actually provided them. They allowed Bill Burkett, who is not a reporter, to withhold the identity of his purported source for the documents. In other words, CBS published very damning documents without even knowing who had obtained the originals. A simple Google search on Bill Burkett would have revealed numerous detailed reports of his attacks on Governor and President Bush, and the subsequent undermining of his claims when subjected to scrutiny such as done by the Boston Globe.

CBS knew or easily should have known that Burkett had a long-standing axe to grind with President Bush. They knew he was not the original source of the documents. They knew that he was not the original source for the documents, and had only his word, with no confirming details, that the documents came from a legitimate source. They knew that THEIR OWN DOCUMENT EXAMINERS warned them of problems with the documents, and the one expert they finally relied on vouched only for the signature, not the rest of the document, and specifically stated that it is impossible to fully authenticate a photocopy. To report on documents obtained by Burkett, trusting only his clearly biased word that the documents are authentic, showed, in my opinion, reckless disregard for the truth.

Rather's and CBS's recklessness is further shown in their initial response to the immediate and substantive criticism of the documents. Instead of admitting that they really didn't know where the documents came from, or that the source was a known and persistent critic of the President, they accused their own critics of being partisan. They slapped up a typwritten document with a small "TH" on it as proof positive that typewriters back then could do superscripted "TH", despite very clear differences between that typewritten example and the forged documents.

Did Dan Rather actually know that these documents were forged when he reported them? I doubt it. Did he show reckless disregard for that truth? I believe so, yes.

To prevail in a libel lawsuit, President Bush would also have to show actual malice on the part of Dan Rather and CBS. Personally, I believe that the whole course of conduct showing Rather's and CBS's reckless disregard for the truth is itself evidence of malice. There is no other conceivable motive for their actions. I would be willing to bet quite a bit of money that they have rejected similar stories which portrayed Democrats negatively.

Truly, if one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had brought Dan Rather or his producer a set of documents looking exactly like this but supposedly from the "personal files" of one of Kerry's Vietnam commanders, claiming that Kerry did not deserve one of his medals, does anybody truly believe CBS would have run that story without a great deal more fact checking and certainty than they required here?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[mcmonkey]

It's like saying in American football, "Let them score so we can get the ball back."

Which happens, while not every game, more than once in a blue moon.

Situations calling for giving the other team a quick score include, time is running out and a score seems imminent. Coaches decide to maximize time left when they get they get ball back rather than letting the other team run out the game clock. A more common example is giving the other team an intentional touchback. Giving the other team 2 points when you're up by 3 is sometimes the best move.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[xeaxes]

So, have you not seen the Kansas City Chiefs at all this year or last year?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

That's not at all what "reckless disregard" means. It means that you'd have to demonstrate that CBS News entertained serious doubts about the truthfulness of their story and that they went ahead with it anyway. Times v. Sullivan.

In New York in particular, where any civil claim against CBS News would have to be heard, it's essentially impossible to demonstrate reckless disregard. You have to have some kind of documentary evidence that the possibility of falsehood was seriously entertained before putting the story on the air, and that kind of thing just doesn't grow on trees.

(You may be a lawyer, but I question whether you're a very good one.)

Re:Who did this damage more?

[LWATCDR]

Good grief this is like saying who does the SCO lawsuit damage more Linux or SCO since they end up looking like raving loons?
The press has said time and time again that they are the protectors of our freedom and that the problem with the Internet is that the press checks it's facts while on the Internet anyone can post anything.
Who does this damage the most? The press. It is now clear that Dan Rather if not CBS is not the impartial defenders of the democratic process that they claim to be. They have there own bias and it does show in there reporting. How many other stories have been slanted by them? Who did the damage? The press. CBS has now sunk to the level of FOX news and the Midnight Star.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[PatHMV]

In fact, I was slightly off in my recollection of New York Times v. Sullivan, but not in the way you suggest. I said that the actual malice test was separate from the reckless disregard test. In fact it is not. Here's what the court said:

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Sullivan does not itself define reckless disregard. Its definition has been flushed out in several subsequent opinions of the court. Fundamentally, the court has said that it must ultimately come down to a case-by-case analysis. In St. Amant v. Thompson, the Supreme Court in 1968 fleshed out what it meant by reckless disregard. The court stated:

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.

In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the Supreme Court found actual malice through reckless disregard because of a newspaper's extreme departure from the normal standards for investigation followed by responsible journalists:

In short, the evidence is ample to support a finding of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

Now, was it really necessary to resort to infantile personal insult?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey retard - touchbacks don't give anyone any points. They just bring the ball back out to the 20 yard line.

OH - you're talking about a safety. Well guess what - when you get a safety, not only do you get 2 points, YOU ALSO GET THE BALL. IDIOT.

Also, the ONLY time you'd let someone score is if you're leading by less than 7 points and it looks like they might run out the clock and score with no time left. It's not just when "a score is imminent"

Man it's no wonder geeks get beat up during high school - you're obviously clueless about sports.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Doc Ruby]

Rove is that smart and underhanded. There's plenty more where that came from - there's still a month and a half until the election, then several more until inauguration. And until CBS went after this story exposing Bush, there were lots more disgusting Rove operations that they never reported, so we never got to hear rightwingers chime in. It's a lot worse than it appears.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I hope so- if so, my new third party will have a cakewalk re-registering voters in 2007. That is- as long as there's still an election in 2008. But since we support *both* the IWW and the NRA, I don't think there will be much of a problem forcing our names onto the ballot if that's what it comes down to- a need for regime change in Washington.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[stevew]

If you are going to pick on someone for pickup trucks - PICK ON THE RIGHT IDIOTS...it was Dateline that blew up the truck on NBC.

SHEESH!

Re:Who did this damage more?

[RetiredMidn]

Hell, this episode may well have helped Bush; he's somewhat inoculated against any further abuse from this story because it now looks like a vast, left-wing conspiracy...

Re:Who did this damage more?

[b-baggins]

True. The Wall Within is a much better example of Dan Rather's flights of fancy.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[nursedave]

And the worst thing about it is, even though that was proven waaaay back when it came out to be %100 Unadulterated Bullshit (Parve), it remains, proudly, in CBS's history of the VietNam war video library.

Rather is such a dick. I mean, the guy knew - KNEW - these memos were bullshit; and he ran the story, and now is just saying 'Ooops, sorry, we now find we can't verify these.' Not, "We apologize for lying," or anything like that. Why? Because he is a completely partisan ass-hat.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah...that's the idea. The Republicans manufacture some patently obvious forgeries and let them "slip" into CBS's hands. Once they're proven to be fake, the Democrats get smeared. Nice tactic, eh?

Only on slashdot could this get an interesting. CBS had obviously forged documents. At least two "experts" they hired, told them the documents were questionable. Are you saying that CBS is so guilable that it was duped by the Republicans ? Dan Rather has been researching this story for FOUR YEARS. He has a huge grudge ever since VP George H Bush (The Father) embarrassed him during an interview. See This Page For some more backround.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Zeinfeld]

Uh, yeah...that's the idea. The Republicans manufacture some patently obvious forgeries and let them "slip" into CBS's hands. Once they're proven to be fake, the Democrats get smeared. Nice tactic, eh?

What are folk on here?

One of the curious facts about the activities of the 111th keyboarders discussion of antique typewriters is that almost none of the points raised by 'experts' were valid. As I said at the time the series of claims about the capabilities of 1970s era typewriters fell apart, there was a typewriter that could have produced the memo and denying that fact only obscured the genuine question of whether it was Killian's office typewriter. Its like arguing that Hitler and Stalin never met because they were not contemporaries. The conclusion is correct but the argument is based on a claim that is clearly false, same thing with the claims that the documents were not produced on a typwriter, take a look at the uneven baseline and then explain how to produce the same effect using a laser printer.

Regardless of how the document was produced the issue of provenance was always going to be there. There is no real reason to doubt that the documents were given to CBS by Burkett, a critic of Bush who does not appear to be sponsored by either the Democratic party and certainly not by Karl Rove.

I guess that we could hypothesize that Rove planted the documents on Burkett, but this seems highly unlikely. The simplest explanation is that Burkett forged the documents himself.

I don't see why this should affect the Democrats. It is very clear that the 'Smearboat Liars for Bush' are peddling outright lies, their story has changed repeatedly, is denied by contemporary documents, including the citations for decorations awarded to the smearboat liars. It is very obvious that the Smearboat Liars are a Rove creation but this does not seem to have damaged Bush.

As for libel, I can't see how Bush would want to empower CBS with discovery powers. Killian's secretary has stated that the documents produced were forgeries but that she remembers typing similar documents. The documents were only a small part of the evidence against Bush. The fact remains that Bush lied about the reason for not taking his medical.

It is a pity that the Republican party did not exercise the same degree of skepticism with respect to the documents provided by Ahmed Chalabai that were used to justify the entry to the Iraq quagmire. Chalabai was a far more suspicious source than Burkett, he is after all a convicted embezzler and the CIA had concluded he was an Iranian agent back in the 1990s.

Bush's lies about his guard service are irrelevant compared to his lies about the cause for war in Iraq.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[geoffspear]

I don't think the Chiefs are letting people score so they can get the ball back. Why would they want to give Trent Green more opportunities to look bad?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Cereal Box]

was a typewriter that could have produced the memo

Can you name that typewriter?

My understanding of the issue, after reading a lot on both sides, is that the forged memo contains both a superscript "th" and proportional spacing. The two IBM typewriters that were constantly batted about as possiblities were (IIRC) the Selectric and the Executive. The Selectric could do "th" with a removable type ball, but it could only do monospaced typing. The Executive could do proportional spacing, but it had a fixed set of characters, of which the superscripted "th" isn't one of them. So I think the real issue is that you need to find a typewriter that can do BOTH, not point out the obvious fact that there were typewriters at the time that could do one but not the other.

The other more pressing issue is the fact that typing up the same memo with MS Word's defaults gives a memo with unbelievably similar spacing and font...

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Nurseman]

Truly, if one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had brought Dan Rather or his producer a set of documents looking exactly like this but supposedly from the "personal files" of one of Kerry's Vietnam commanders, claiming that Kerry did not deserve one of his medals, does anybody truly believe CBS would have run that story without a great deal more fact checking and certainty than they required here?

I posted, so I cannot mod. But this statement is in need of +1 insightful tag. This goes to the heart of the matter. I, like you, do not believe that Rather "knew" the documents were false. But, clearly there were questions about this Burkett fellow. Two experts asked by CBS warned them the documents were fishy. They ignored these warnings and went with the story. A story they have been pursuing for four years, still with no proof. Now they try and play the victim, "We were decieved" and not "We decieved the public"
Hubris Maximus, as my old math teacher used to say.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Zeinfeld]

The Executive could do proportional spacing, but it had a fixed set of characters, of which the superscripted "th" isn't one of them. So I think the real issue is that you need to find a typewriter that can do BOTH, not point out the obvious fact that there were typewriters at the time that could do one but not the other.

At the time typewriters with non-standard keys were very common. All it took was to simply switch out one type bar and the corresponding key. It was considerably easier to do this type of mod on a standard machine where you only needed to change one character than on a selectric where you had to machine a completely custom golf ball. Think about it for just a few moments. There have been several IBM repairmen from the time who report doing this on a regular basis.

The other more pressing issue is the fact that typing up the same memo with MS Word's defaults gives a memo with unbelievably similar spacing and font...

Again, the claim made was false, the similarities disappear when you do a comparison at a decent resolution. Didn't you get just a bit suspicious when you see someone choosing to shrink both documents that way? The pagination only breaks that way after you spend a long time playing with the margins and you still don't come up with the uneven baseline that is very clear on the CBS copy.

Whoever took the trouble to create the documents definitely used a typewriter to do so.

The real problem with the memos was provenance. If Bartlet had kept copies of the memos he would have produced them much earlier. He has been claiming that Bush's records were sanitized for several years now.

The wittering on with a progression of categorical statements about typewriters that kept being disproved came close to causing the provenance point to be missed.

The obvious way to check the authenticity of the memos was to compare them with others from Killian's office (not the typing pool which probably typed the other stuff). I wonder why so many Bush appologists preferred to make demonstratively untrue statements such as 'typewriters cannot do proportional fonts' rather than perform the simple test that would be decisive.

Of course the answer is obvious, they know Bush is a fraud, they know he used connections to get into the guard, hung arroung with crooks like Kenny Boy Lay of Enron, lied about the economy, tax cuts and Iraq. They wanted to believe the memos forgeries but they knew deep down that they just might be genuine and that they were exactly the sort of thing you would expect of Bush in his DUI Alcholic period. Best not put the issue to the test then and release the actual documents, they are clearly being supressed for a reason.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be trying to stay neutral, but you have not succeeded. The documents have not been shown conclusively to be either real or fake at this point.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Cereal Box]

There have been several IBM repairmen from the time who report doing this on a regular basis.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that someone who reportedly didn't type memos would know how to do this or was even inclined to do so. We could ask Mr. Killian, but he's dead. Very convenient.

Again, the claim made was false, the similarities disappear when you do a comparison at a decent resolution.

I don't follow. I tried this, and you can try it yourself. Find a website that has the MS Word file of the memo, then print it and the CBS memo PDF out and overlay them (turning the Word memo every so slightly to compensate for the CBS memo being scanned at a slight angle) and you will clearly see that the spacing is remarkably similar.

you still don't come up with the uneven baseline that is very clear on the CBS copy.

The memo was scanned in at a slight angle...

I wonder why so many Bush appologists preferred to make demonstratively untrue statements such as 'typewriters cannot do proportional fonts' rather than perform the simple test that would be decisive.

I think you heard a lot of people who were simplifying the issue, that's all. And haven't people been TRYING to perform the "simple" decisive test? Didn't CBS admit that they can't vouch for the authenticity of the memos (in other words, they're sugarcoating "these memos are forged")? Their source even refuses to identify where the got the memos from -- it's just a little bit suspicious, don't you think?

Whoever took the trouble to create the documents definitely used a typewriter to do so.

Well, which typewriter is it? No one has provided a definitive answer, only stating the obvious fact that "this typewriter can do superscripts IF you go to the trouble of replacing a type ball and this other typewriter can do proportional spacing" or even pointing out that very expensive typesetters that only experienced people could operate COULD actually produce this document (but not necessarily with the exact same spacing and fonts that a brand new copy of MS Word possesses). Honestly, it should be very easy for those among us who are not convinced of MS Word forgery to identify THE EXACT typewriters that could have been used (and more importantly, likely to have been used) and compare National Guard purchase records. Even with THAT simple, decisive test, CBS still has to acknowledge that they don't believe the memos are authentic anymore.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Zeinfeld]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that someone who reportedly didn't type memos would know how to do this or was even inclined to do so. We could ask Mr. Killian, but he's dead. Very convenient.

We could ask his secretary who was the first person to give any reliable data on the authenticity of the memos. She knows what sort of typewriter she had after all, it was not a proportional font machine, they are something of a pain to use if you have to correct.

The point here is that you and the other members of the 111th keyboard squadron have been confusing good points (provenance) with really really bad points like saying that Killian did not type. I don't think you would find a single Lt. Col. in the US army who typed their own office memos at the time, even today a Lt. Col. qualifies for a secretary, it is a very senior position.

Killian probably did not wax and polish his own staff car or clean his own office. But that does not mean that they were not done.

We really do need a better form of argument for Web politics discussions than blanket assertions of absolute certitude made on the basis of absolutely no knowledge of the situation.

Now we have the left wing blogosphere going off chasing the idea that the whole scheme was a set up by Rove. I don't see why Rove would do this, it sounds like a very risky scheme to me. The most likely explanation is that either Bartlet typed up the memos himself or someone duped Bartlet into beleiving that they had discovered the memos. But instead we are off chasing a wife swapping GOP strategist as the probable source.

Like when do we discuss the 1000+ US soldiers that have died because Bush lied?

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Zeinfeld]

In New York in particular, where any civil claim against CBS News would have to be heard, it's essentially impossible to demonstrate reckless disregard.

Bush could actually sue in any state where the program was broadcast. But the problem goes further. Even if the documents were proven to be fraudulent under US libel jurisprudence Bush would have to prove that the AWOL claims themselves were untrue, it would not be sufficient to show that one of the pieces of evidence produced was fraudulent.

The latest piece of jujitsu in this saga is that the DNC has demanded that the RNC explain their part in the forgery of the memos. I don't think that this particular conspiracy theory is going to turn out to have much to it, the chances of either national party being involved are negligible.

The polls are clearly swinging towards Kerry, the indisputable proof of this fact is that there was another security scare issued by the RNC to the moonie controlled Washington Times this morning. Al Qaeda to attack before the inauguration unless people vote for Bush etc.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The latest piece of jujitsu in this saga is that the DNC has demanded that the RNC explain their part in the forgery of the memos.

Misdirection and spin. The RNC has no part in the forgery whatsoever. The DNC, in demanding that the RNC explain its involvement, has allowed its most lamebrained followers to reject that answer out of hand and keep the conspiracy theory alive.

Lame, lame, lame. Clever politicking, but incredibly lame.

the chances of either national party being involved are negligible.

Um. The DNC is already involved. Joe Lockhart, remember?

The polls are clearly swinging towards Kerry

LOL! Have you seen the latest numbers? Even in the biased polls --the ones that selectively sample in order to approximate the voter turnout in the 2000 election, which was a very low turnout for Republicans--show Kerry tied or behind by a margin that's within the MOE. The unbiased polls show Bush up by as much as 14 or 15 points nationwide. Electoral college math has Bush breaking 300 electoral college votes if the election were held today. Bush's job approval is up over 50%, and the Rasmussen automated tracking poll, not known for being accurate in the numbers but known for being an indicator of trends, has Bush's margin increasing.

Al Qaeda to attack before the inauguration unless people vote for Bush etc.

Oh, sure. It's all a big conspiracy. Whatever, dipshit.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[bshroyer]

Well said. I'm a fervent Bush supporter, and I agree with you 100%. Good job disclosing the essence.

(Well, maybe 99% - I'd not go so far to say that Bush "lied" to use re the rationale for an Iraq invasion, as that implies a deliberate disregard for the truth. I do agree with you, however, that we should find fault in him, and take him to task, for failing to uncover that truth, regardless of how many government agencies or foreign leaders were present to corroborate. Too much was and is at stake to let that oversight slide.)

Re:Who did this damage more?

[DeputySpade]

Like when do we discuss the 1000+ US soldiers that have died because Bush lied?

Like, when do we _STOP_ discussing them?

Seriously... Can you "Anybody but Bush" folks not endure one single conversation on any topic without bringing up Iraq? Believe it or not, Iraq is not the only thing to discuss this election season. WTF does Iraq have to do with forged documents being used in an attempt to interfere with a presidential election?
You people are like Walter.

Walter Sobchak : I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking document...

Dude : I don't see any connection to Iraq, Walter.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[bnenning]

One of the curious facts about the activities of the 111th keyboarders discussion of antique typewriters is that almost none of the points raised by 'experts' were valid.

This must be the new talking point, I've seen it in a couple of places and it's utterly nonsensical. The initial criticisms of the memos were as follows:
- Proportional spacing was not common for ordinary memos in 1972. True.
- Raised superscripts were not common for ordinary memos in 1972. True.
- It is exceptionally unlikely that a memo typed in 1972 would have pixel-perfect correspondence to the same text typed in Word with default settings. True.

I'm sure some did say that it was "impossible" for the memos to have been typed in 1972 instead of the more accurate "extremely improbable", but the points raised were entirely valid.

Re:Who did this damage more?

[DeputySpade]

Oh... I'm sorry. Did I miss a story where Fox news used forged documents to smear a politician during the run-up to an election? If you want to slam fox news for having a starboard list, that's fine, but let's keep at least a little perspective here. There's a difference between having a particular political orientation that shows in your work (all the news organizations lean one way or the other) and using forged documents as the basis of a 60 Minutes installment.

Yes. I know. ( (Defending Fox News) == (Bad) ).I'm burning Karma today and I couldn't care less.

Vote Tabulation

[christopherfinke]

...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.

Does anyone else think that no counting of votes or reporting of results should occur until all polls in the nation have closed? Situations like the one in 2000 could be avoided, and voters in western states would not feel that their vote doesn't matter, since the results of the eastern states would not be public.

Re:Vote Tabulation

[nharmon]

Does anyone else think that no counting of votes or reporting of results should occur until all polls in the nation have closed?

I don't think people understood before the impact that preceding states have on states in later time zones. Hopefully recent electoral experiences will prompt states to delay election information.

In fact, I'm not terribly happy with how news organizations treat election-day broadcasts. They seem to treat it the same as they would treat the final game in a Stanley Cup Series. As opposed to celebrating the freedom of voting, and perhaps a look back on 4 years.

For example, I would have thought that in the years I've spent watching election coverage, I would have heard about what Badnarik said about pre-1890s ballots not being printed by the government.

Re:Vote Tabulation

[Thunderstruck]

While that is a more palatable solution, I'd prefer it if my State did not put the Names of the Candidates for President on the Ballot. We don't vote for them, we don't need the extra names cluttering up the ballot.

Re:Vote Tabulation

[christopherfinke]

What state do you live in that you don't vote for in the Presidential election?

Re:Vote Tabulation

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

It's called the Electoral College.

Re:Vote Tabulation

[mcmonkey]

What state do you live in that you don't vote for in the Presidential election?

Well, if the OP is in the US of A, it doesn't matter which state. None of the states have you voting for the President. You are voting for electors that represent your state and vote on the Monday following the second Wednesday of December.

Re:Vote Tabulation

[klossner]

> I don't think people understood before the impact that preceding states have on states in later time zones. The first time this came to a head was in the 1980 presidential election when Jimmy Carter went on the air to concede defeat before west coast polls had closed. This caused quite a commotion.

Re:Vote Tabulation

[antifoidulus]

Heh, well, it's slightly more complicated than that. Yes you are voting for electors, but in some(but not all) states, the electors are bound by law to vote for whomever the state voted for...

Re:Vote Tabulation

[R2.0]

There are 3 issues here:

1: States and localities conting the votes starting when the local polls close. I don't think it is a good idea to prohibit this for 2 reasons: first, it keeeps poll workers up into the wee hours of the morning, which can lead to more errors and fewer workers, and second, just having the ballots/voting machines sitting around for 3-4 hours is a bad idea and invites mischief.

2: States reporting vote count resultas as an ongoing process, i.e. "Candidate X has 64% with 29 precincts reporting" I think this is sort of neutral. I think it could be banned (how does 1st amendment free speech protections apply to local governments?), but I don't think it's a real problem.

3: News organizations projecting results: This is the real evil, and the one that has the most constitutional protection. The First amendment simply won't allow such controls on the freedom of the press.

Re:Vote Tabulation

[Thunderstruck]

I wonder if that is constitutionally permitted. After all, I think it is not permitted for state legislatures to pass laws directing their Senators and Representatives in Washington how to vote. Electors are similarly federal offices.

Hindsight is 20/20

[etymxris]

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.

Re:Hindsight is 20/20

[pudge]

"Was CBS justified in believing the documents to be authentic?"

They were not. Note that CBS and Rather talk about mistakes in judgment. They know they got it wrong, and that they were to blame for getting it wrong.

Re:Hindsight is 20/20

[Otter]

Before airing the story, they checked with (in the last version of the story, AFAIK) four forensic experts -- three of whom now claim to have warned them that the documents were fake.

In any case, the real issue isn't the mistake, it's the cover-up. If they had retracted the story immediately, it would have been much more forgivable but there is simply no excuse for the way they stonewalled until it was clear that the problem wasn't going away. And the "apology" here doesn't address that issue at all.

Re:Hindsight is 20/20

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more than a cover-up going on here. The CBS producer behind the story, Mary Mapes, put the Kerry campaign in touch with CBS' source for the documents. Mary Mapes has been trying to get the goods on Bush with this story for five years.

Criminal complaint?

[nharmon]

Is it illegal to falsify government documents?

If so, would Bill Burkett have to tell investigators where he obtained the documents?

Re:Criminal complaint?

[christopherfinke]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal to falsify a government document. However, if Burkett himself made the documents, he would not be forced to admit it, as the fifth amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

That one's been asked and answered. These documents are not in any way official, whether they're real or not. Since there was no intent to defraud, even signing a dead man's name is not illegal. At the very, very worst, CBS News might have committed libel, but the standard for libel is very strict, and such a claim probably would not hold up in court.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[joranbelar]

However, if Burkett himself made the documents, he would not be forced to admit it, as the fifth amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination.

But...doesn't the PATRIOT Act overrule that? ;)

Re:Criminal complaint?

[nharmon]

Since there was no intent to defraud[...].

Actually, I would argue that fraud was the only intent. I mean, we're not talking about some stuff written on a napkin. We're talking about a document written to appear to be on official stationary, by a government official.

Illegal or not, I don't see why a person should be allowed to make fake government documents, pass them as real ones, and not go to prison.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[Frymaster]

pleading the fifth doesn't necessarily mean burkett faked the documents himself though. he could have stolen them, illegally copied them or committed some other crime in the attainment.

in fact, the fifth ammendment does not outline anything about what constitutes "incrimination". and, obviously, he can't be called upon to prove that he would self-incriminate by revealing his source. that defeats the purpose.

of course the feds can always call for a grand jury to look into it. then the fifth ammendment doesn't apply... and neither does the fourth.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Actually, I would argue that fraud was the only intent.

To defraud means to deprive somebody of money by lying.

I don't see why a person should be allowed to make fake government documents

These are not government documents. Even if they were real, they would not be official anything.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[kalidasa]

And if CBS gave Burkett money for his role in "bring the documents to light," that would constitute fraud, no?

Re:Criminal complaint?

[overunderunderdone]

Is it illegal to falsify government documents?

Yes. A number of "bloggers" who are also lawyers (which seems to be most of them) have looked into this idea. There are three different laws (AFIAK) that could apply.

1. There is a Texas law regarding falsifying government records. The fake TexANG letterhead on the forgeries qualifies these documents. Even if they were "private" memos they were the private memos of a National Guard officer in his capacity as such. One of them purports to be an official order so that one definitely qualifies.
2. There is a Texas forgery law regarding forgery with the intent to defraud or harm another. "Harm" is pretty broadly defined, certainly tarnishing a reputation or two (Bush, Staudt) qualifies.
3. If the culprit is subject to the UCMJ there is a forged military documents law.

l got this from www.indcjournal.com

Beyond those laws there is the potential for a civil suit. Bush certainly has grounds though he would never sue because of the politics of it. Staudt could sue. I believe Killian's widow and son could sue under a Texas law which allows the estate of a dead person to sue for libel on the deceased's behalf. One of the memos mentions Killian committing a felony by backdating (that is, falsifying) a government document a violation of laws number two and three above.

Finally, tangentially related, the two document analysts that came forward to ABC & the Washington Post may have a claim against CBS since in a public statements CBS said those experts "misrepresented" their communications to CBS. Given the nature of their profession the accusation that they misrepresented themselves (i.e. "lied") is a pretty serious accusation and if false is probably actionable.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

And if CBS gave Burkett money for his role in "bring the documents to light," that would constitute fraud, no?

If Dan Rather were king of the space gnomes, that'd be a hell of a scoop, too. There's no reason to believe either of those things, however.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[overunderunderdone]

Oops, regarding Killian's families potential to sue the last sentence should read "...laws number ONE and three above"

Re:Criminal complaint?

[Procrastin8er]

Forging a Federal document is a Federal felony.

Re:Criminal complaint?

[The Angry Mick]

Short answer. No.

Not any more likely than Robert Novak being charged with treason for revealing an acting CIA operative's name.

How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[TheWanderingHermit]

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.

Re:How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[BrookHarty]

Rather, on the other hand, had time to check, and didn't do his job.

I find the whole thing very amusing. Dan Rather did check, but he didnt test the papers for fraud. I expected Bush or the White house to come out with a better response than "They seem fake..." Like providing the real documents, nope....

It's amusing, they tried to get Clinton on anything, finally after nothing worked, they investigated his sex life.

But on the other hand.

Bush's service records show gaps, people know he was an avid partier and drug user, he admitted it. Every business he started Failed. He was funded by the Bin ladens. His daughter sold drugs in re-hab, was never arrested. He used faulty intelligence to start a war. (Lie?) The list goes on...

Also, with all the attacks on the president in office, the 911 report showed Clinton was too busy defending himself with all the republican attacks. Nice job. And now the republicans say, doesn't matter who is president, you should support your president.... Nice 180 there.

The newest spin for today, Rathergate.

Business as usual.

-
Commies had Pravda, Republicans have FOX TV

Re:How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Wow. You just kinda vomited all over the keyboard there, didn't ya? I know you're probably so furious about the coming landslide that you can barely see straight, but could you maybe put just a little effort into at least concocting the appearance that your post is in some way topical or relevant?

Re:How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather, on the other hand, had time to check, and didn't do his job.

True, but already implied in the other post.

It's amusing, they tried to get Clinton on anything, finally after nothing worked, they investigated his sex life.

Here's why you got modded to troll right away -- you dared to start here and say something bad about conservatives. In today's climate, that's a group that is unable to understand there are different points of views and feels the need to hide anything that indicates there is another view. You got modded down because conservatives can't stand to hear any truth that they disagree with.

His daughter sold drugs in re-hab, was never arrested.

I've worked in rehab. I can't remember ever seeing someone arrested for selling or using in any programs I worked in (I'm not saying it's never done). The emphasis is more on treatment than on calling the police.

Re:How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[BigFire]

Dan Rather owes apology to the following individuals:

For slandering a dead man:
Captain Gary Killians (Colonel Killians' son).
Marjorie Connell (Colonel Killians' widow).

For libeling against:
General Staud (who retired 18 months before the forge memo date).
General Hodges (who was mislead about the document being handwritten).
George W. Bush (for attempting a amateurish job of a smear).

Re:How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[glitchvern]

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.

Which is why of course, they should not have been doing it in the first place. Both Fox and CNN called the election in Florida for Gore an hour before the polls closed in the most Republican part of the state. As small as the margin was in that state, they had to know that calling it early would have an affect on the final results. Calling the election in that case was grossly irresponsible, and I have a hard time forgiving any of the major networks for it.

Re:How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[Dante333]

Nice sig, especially given the context of the story. That being said you should add Democrats have CBS.

Also, its Foxnews. Fox TV is the channel that does Mad TV, That 70's Show and the Simpson's.

My two questions

[Otter]

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.)

Re:My two questions

[kalidasa]

Don't forget that Karl Rove has been known to do things like bug his own office. The assumption that this was a coordinated attack on GWB is just that, an assumption based upon the (perfectly legitimate anywhere except in politics, where this sort of thing usually ends up favoring the target) logic that GWB's campaign wouldn't forge documents that make them look bad. Do I think there are people on the left capable of doing something like this? Sure. But don't assume that just because the obvious benefit (if the documents hadn't been all but proven to be forgeries) would have redounded to Kerry means folks with Kerry's best interests at heart forged them.

Re:My two questions

[shaka999]

Why exactly do you believe CBS and/or the Boston Globe were in on a coordinated attack? A much more likely situation is that someone was out to get Bush and CBS/Globe jumped on the story in the age old journalistic tradition.

This is just going to feed the Right Wing's crap about the liberal press.

2) Here I agree. CBS took way to long to admit a mistake. Furthermore, some of the items brought up to prove these documents were fakes were so obvious I have to seriously question how well the researched them in the first place. Again, they probably wanted to get the story out so bad they fell hook, line, and sinker.

Re:My two questions

[Otter]

The assumption that this was a coordinated attack on GWB is just that, an assumption based upon the (perfectly legitimate anywhere except in politics, where this sort of thing usually ends up favoring the target) logic that GWB's campaign wouldn't forge documents that make them look bad.

You and shaka999 are both reading way too much into "coordinated attack". The Kerry campaign launched this "Fortunate Son" offensive, complete with theme, theme song and an elaborate video at the same time that CBS and the Globe prominently announced their supposed revelations, and Tom Harkin and others were out on the campaign trail flogging the documents the very next day. Again, I do *NOT* believe that the Kerry campaign (or CBS or the Globe) had any involvement in creating the documents, but I also certainly don't believe that their themes all happened to synchronistically converge on the same day. The campaign was clearly close enough to the story that it bears explaining just how close they were to this part of it.

As far as Karl Rove is concerned -- if it makes you happy to tell yourself that, so be it. The great thing about evidence-free conspiracy theories is that there's no way for anyone to talk you out of them.

Re:My two questions

[Otter]

See my reply to someone else above.

This is just going to feed the Right Wing's crap about the liberal press.

Yeah, go figure.

Re:My two questions

[Anonymous Coward]

> The campaign was clearly close enough to the story

Agreed, but it cuts both ways. The "blogger" that almost immediately exposed the fraud turned out to be a big GOP Hack.

(Not that it matters who he is, just that the story was spun as if he were an anonymous nobody.)

Re:My two questions

[brewthatistrue]

Some evil mastermind. His grand scheme was discovered within a matter of hours by non-experts of the blogosphere who kept asking questions until the real experts got a chance to chime in. There would be no apologies or retractions necessary from CBS if they had seriously researched the documents before running with the story.

Re:My two questions

[kalidasa]

Um, if Karl Rove were behind this, that's exactly what he'd want to have happen - have it exposed immediately as a fraud. This isn't to exculpate CBS - they should have looked into the documents more closely. I just want you to ask yourself this question: are you really sure you know who benefited by all this?

Re:My two questions

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Agreed, but it cuts both ways. The "blogger" that almost immediately exposed the fraud turned out to be a big GOP Hack.

Um. That statement is completely false. You know that, right? I'm just wondering if you're posting out of malicious intent to lie or out of shameful and disgusting ignorance.

'Cause it's one or the other.

Re:My two questions

[Anonymous Coward]

So because you know who Karl Rove is, that makes your crackpot conspiracy theory credible?

Re:My two questions

[kalidasa]

No, Otter, I'm not reading too much into "coordinated attack." "Coordinated attack" does not mean "the DNC coordinated the leaks on this and CBS and the Boston Globe just jumped on the story without doing proper fact checking" if that's what you meant. The way you used "coordinated attack" suggests that the editors of Globe, the DNC, and CBS sat down and coordinated an attack, and I don't think even you believe that.

As for Karl Rove - look, I'm not saying that he DID do it, I'm just saying that past history suggests we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that he did. In the end, anyone with half an ounce of brains should have been able to figure out where this would end up, if they did forge the documents.

And don't you think that the ease with which the forgery was exposed suggests that the forger is one of the most incompetent practitioners of his craft of the past decade?

Re:My two questions

[kalidasa]

No, because I know something of the history of what Karl Rove does. You know, like bug his own office. And I'm not saying that this is true, only that I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Kerry or the DNC is behind the forgeries, since it's clear who is benefitting (the Administration) and that should have been clear in foresight to anyone who did forge documents - that they were so poorly forged they were bound to be exposed.

Re:My two questions

[aelbric]

This is just going to feed the Right Wing's crap about the liberal press.

Not that there's any justification for that in this case....

Re:My two questions

[Anonymous Coward]

You can put the tin foil hat away. It looks like an adviser(s) to the Kerry campaign was involved:

At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.

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. ...

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."

And what else is interesting about Mary Mapes??

Also relevant is who shepherded the in vestigation for CBS: Mary Mapes, Rather's personal producer at "60 Minutes II."

The anchor says Mapes has been "investigating this story for five years."

It looks like Bush hatred is starting to produce some very bitter fruit indeed. And yet, the left keeps planting, celebrating, and consuming it. The outcome of this year's election will be very interesting to watch.

Re:My two questions

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be interesting to watch the moderation on this.

Re:My two questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that Karl Rove has been known to do things like bug his own office.

Well, even though I'm a rabid Democrat, let's be fair. It was never discovered who bugged Karl Rove's office. Many of the reporters who covered him eventually came to suspect that he himself did it. He does, however, have a history of doing really sneaky, brilliant things like that (which is one of the reasons so many suspect this story is true).

Re:My two questions

[Anonymous Coward]

So Burkett, who accused Rove of conspiring to cleanse TXANG records during Bush's gubernatorial re-election campaign, accepted documents that came from Rove somehow? How many layers of people would this have to go through before it would get to someone Burkett would trust? That seems a little far fetched.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Kerry or the DNC is the source of the documents either, but proposing an equally far-fetched conclusion to jump to isn't constructive. I think the most likely scenario is that these documents were generated by a crackpot who has a personal axe to grind with Bush, and wasn't smart enough to pull it off. Like Burkett.

Re:My two questions

[Otter]

"Coordinated attack" does not mean "the DNC coordinated the leaks on this and CBS and the Boston Globe just jumped on the story without doing proper fact checking" if that's what you meant. The way you used "coordinated attack" suggests that the editors of Globe, the DNC, and CBS sat down and coordinated an attack, and I don't think even you believe that.

What I figured had happened (closer to your latter scenario than the former) now turns out to have been precisely what did happen, and that's precisely what I meant by "coordinated". If you want to further quibble with my usage, so be it.

Note that there's no scandal in your second scenario -- that's how the news business works. No scandal until your big story turns out to based on a forgery, at which point all involved parties owe us a bit of candor.

Re:My two questions

[kalidasa]

Yes, entirely possible (why post as AC when you've got something constructive to say?). I was offering a plausible counter-proposal, not arguing what was actually happening. Based upon what has come out since I wrote this, I'm inclined to agree with your proposal in your last paragraph: Burkett holds a grudge and put these toghether himself. The fact that he requested that CBS get someone from the Kerry campaign to call him suggests two things: no Kerry campaign connection, and no sense at CBS.

Lawsuit

[c.ecker]

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 ...

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 ... more bogus reporting by CBS and company ...

Re:Lawsuit

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Notice they didn't retract the story -- just retracted the authenticity of the memos.

Um. No.

I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where--if I knew then what I know now-- I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

That's a retraction. Of the whole story.

If GW was a citizen rather than The President, he'd have a slam-dunk slander case.

No, he wouldn't. In order to collect damages for defamation, you generally have to prove that the publishing agency acted with the clear knowledge that the information wasn't true. Proving that the absence of probative evidence --a memo from Rather saying that the story is crap but that he's going to run it anyway because he hates that bastard Bush--is essentially impossible.

Re:Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That sounds a bit like the tactics used to sell the American public on war with Iraq. One wonders what might have happened if some of the folks who spent hours trying to analyze the nature of of curlycue apostrophes would have put the same energy into analyzing the Niger forgeries, Chalabi's ties to Iran, or Hussein's supposed ties to Al Qaeda.

Re:Lawsuit

[c.ecker]

Michael? Is that you?

Re:Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

How did they slander them? There was no new information in the documents. The White House even initially accepted them as genuine. The documents did not conflict with what Bush knew to be true.

Re:Lawsuit

[PatHMV]

You have misstated the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on libel and slander of public figures. A news program can be held liable for libel or slander of a public figure if 1) the story is in fact false and (2) the news program acts with actual malice, which is defined as "knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." New York Times v. Sullivan

In subsequent decisions, the Court has interpreted "reckless disregard" to include the following:

The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persuasive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant, is the product of his imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call. Nor will they be likely to prevail when the publisher's allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports. (emphasis added)

(I'm only responding again here because you were modded up as "insightful" for your erroneous explanation of the law)

Re:Lawsuit

[overunderunderdone]

Read the second half of the sentence you put in bold ...as it was aired. He would still have aired the story, he just would have told it differently, still plenty of room in that statement for the "fake, but accurate" line Rather has taken in recent days.

It doesn't bother me so much that CBS was duped, but that they were so EAGER to be duped. The appearance of the documents raises red flags. The "unimpeachable" source is anything but (a very partisan Democrat with a personal animus towards Bush and towards the Texas National Guard, who has had to retract some previous accusations). The partisan nature of the other key source Ben Barnes who is a Vice Chair of, and a top fundraiser for, the Kerry campaign. I am not a big believer in "bias" but I can't imagine that Rather would have run with a similarly partisanly sourced hit piece against Kerry.

Re:Lawsuit

[overunderunderdone]

In order to collect damages for defamation, you generally have to prove that the publishing agency acted with the clear knowledge that the information wasn't true

OR... that you display "a reckless disregard for the truth". If the testimony of the document examiners is true Bush could have a case. Bush would never sue since it would be bad politics and as a public figure he is VERY unlikely to have a case. But Staudt could sue, as could Killian's family under a law that allows the estate of a dead person to sue for libel on behalf of the deceased. (one of the memos mentions Killian committing a felony in falsifying military records by backdating a report)

Certainly such suits are very hard to win, though Killians family and Staudt as private individuals would have a better chance than Bush. Even if they would likely fail the have enough given what we know to credibly make the argument and get their day in court if they so choose.

It would be interesting what would happen if they do lawyer up. All of a sudden the considerations over at CBS would be different. The network would be more interested in covering it's own ass instead of covering Rather's. Internal documents would be subject to subpeona. That "I hate Bush" memo may actually exist for all we know, it would certainly explain some things.

Re:Lawsuit

[PatHMV]

The lawyering up will be happening very quickly now. The latest news from the AP is that Mary Mapes, the CBS producer, called Joe Lockhart in the Kerry campaign a few days before the report aired and recommended that he call Burkett, that Burkett was going to be providing some documents to CBS regarding President Bush's National Guard service. The AP report is coming directly from Joe Lockhart himself. A major news media producer called political campaign headquarters and gave him non-public information about upcoming news stories about their political opponent. That is such a tremendous breach of journalistic standards as to boggle the mind.

There will be a criminal investigation into all this very soon. Lockhart is clearly trying to get ahead of the game and pin everything on Mapes. A New York Times article yesterday or this morning cited CBS sources also starting to push the blame onto Mapes. I bet she won't sit still for it, myself. It's only a matter of time now. This is going to finish Dan Rather, and it may finish 60 Minutes and the entire CBS News organization. And I don't see how Lockhart can stay with the Kerry campaign after admitting to collaborating with CBS news. It's pretty obvious that the timing of the DNC's "Operation Fortunate Son" attack wasn't coincidental in the slightest.

Re:Lawsuit

[BigFire]

CBS and DNC are setting up Mape to be the fall guy. She should really get her own lawyer (one not associated with CBS, Viacom or DNC) ASAP.

Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort

[Anonymous Coward]

Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006052084 1/ qid=1095708401/sr=8-1/
ref=pd_csp_1/103-7489900-3 467008v=glance&s=books&n =507846

It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[trentfoley]

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"

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[SpaceLifeForm]

The 'wave function' is leaning to the story being true simply because bush has made no effort to refute them.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Sure, the documents are forgeries, but is the story true or false?

Okay, that's about the stupidest comment ever.

The story is, "These memos show that Bush blah blah something bad blah blah."

The memos are forgeries.

The story, therefore, is automatically false.

Use your brain for a minute, huh?

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[TykeClone]

The Bush family has a history in the intelligence business. I wouldn't put this past them.

Don't you suppose they'd have done a better job with the forgeries then.

All of this "Bush/Rove planted the forgeries" stuff depends upon CBS or the DNC or whoever believing the documents are real and that the source of the documents isn't trying to fool them.

Who would you rather be - Kerry or Bush if it's disclosed that one of your people made the forgeries?

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Any chance you'll remove that email address from your sig? I know the person who has to read email sent to that address, and they really aren't happy to see you posting with that.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[kalidasa]

No, it depends upon being able to convince CBS that they're genuine and then being to easily and convincingly impeach them. Look into how Karl Rove operates some time; if he were behind this, it wouldn't be the first time he got something potentially damaging to his candidate into the press in a way that would ultimately discredit it.

Look into the original Bush cocaine accusations (made by an ex-felon, but sourced to Karl Rove), the bug in Rove's office, the Bush debate practice tape that the Gore campaign dutifully handed over, and turned out to have been "leaked" by a Bush campaign staffer with no grudges against GWB - hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Rove directed Bush's ex-sister-in-law to leak that nonsense story to Kitty Kelley. Notice how quickly that story was discredited, despite the fact that the corroborating witness was Sharon Bush's own ex-publicist? Notice how all the attention has been drawn away from Sey Hersh's very important book?

The man is brilliant. He has the moral integrity of a styrofoam cup, but he's brilliant.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[TykeClone]

What does it say about the moral integrity of those who use what is leaked?

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[TykeClone]

Is there any chance that they'll not contest us?

Consider it done.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[kalidasa]

What does it say about the moral integrity of those who use what is leaked?

Not much. You've got a good point there. But which is the more important question: whether Dan Rather is an anything-for-the-ratings slimeball, or which of the campaigns (if it was either of the campaigns, and not just some wacko side org of either party, or some bizarre news junkie with no agenda) would stoop so low as to (very poorly) forge these documents? I know that if it were convincingly proven to me that someone forged these documents with Kerry's knowledge, or his "deniable" apathy, I'd have a very hard time voting for him, even though I think this Administration's foreign policy is the most poorly run in my lifetime, and that any third party vote (where I'd be likely to resort if necessary) would be in effect a vote for the Adminisration. Can you say the same? If it were proven that Karl Rove was behind this, as a dirty trick to discredit the Democrats, would you refuse to vote to re-elect GWB?

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[nine-times]

The 'wave function' is leaning to the story being true simply because bush has made no effort to refute them.

Yes. And if you refuse to let the nice officer search your car, you must be smuggling drugs. Oh, and if you plead the 5th on the witness stand, you must be guilty of the crime your accused of. And while you're at it, let's ask George W. a simple yes or no question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" We'll know the answer is "no" if he doesn't want to answer that one.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[TykeClone]

If it were convincingly proven to me that someone forged these documents with Bush's knowledge - yes.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[kalidasa]

Then we're in agreement that whoever did this is scum. Good to see some agreement can be reached. And yes, Dan Rather deserves anything that happens to him over this.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[Rhinobird]

Why would Bush have to refute the claims of false documents?

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding was that that was just up to the state utilities boards, but I really don't know much about it.

Anyway, thanks!

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[bluGill]

Use your brain. This has been discussed many times. There are good reasons to belive that Bush fulfilled his requirements, his dischard for instance indicates he did so. (Bush has never claimed is record is better than Kerry's, just that he did what was required)

He didn't get a physical, but they can be obtained anytime quickly if needed so that isn't a big deal. It didn't matter because he only needed a physical to fly, and the only plane he knew how to fly was obsolete and with one year left they didn't want to teach him a different one.

Nobody knows how he filled his last year of service. Those are open questions. However his dischard indicates he did something. Records are lacking here. Memories of those who are there should always be questioned - he was a nobody back then, so why would anyone remember him?

Use your brain. There are questions. However the evidence is NOT strong enough to base a vote decision on, even before we note that this was 30 years ago and people have a tendancy to change in that time.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Nobody knows how he filled his last year of service.

What? Of course we know how he fulfilled his last year of service. We have his personnel cards. They tell us exactly what he did and how many points he earned (56, if you wanna know).

There are questions.

Not really. There are unfounded allegations by people with a grudge. That's not enough to add up to "questions" unless somebody can shit some kind of plausibility to go along with the rumors. Thus far, nothing like that has come up ...and it's been a whole decade since these rumors first came up.

If there were a story to be told, somebody would have told it by now.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[TykeClone]

I don't think that the state utilities board would deny it if it was not contested, but I may be wrong on that.

Re:It is obvious if you put on your tinfoil hat

[Anonymous Coward]

But I read that some other people confirmed some of the facts in the memos are true.

If in fact, the memos are mostly true; then wouldn't it be very smart to fake them, release them and take advantage of the stupid masses. (forged document does not mean all the information is false)

I think this should be investigated at great depth. It would be nice to see Rove get caught in one of his plans; that is if he did it. IF not, I still want to see someone get it who deserves it. (unfortunately both sides are smart enough to setup a fall guy if things get too hot.)

I love how Rove got them to delay the prison abuse story until they had a proper responce to down play it. Now when all the videos of children being raped got out, it was 'old' news and nobody mentioned it. (Yet we are still made to equate catholic priest with pedifile.)

John Kerry's coffin called...

[Anonymous Coward]

It said, "No more nails please."

Re:John Kerry's coffin called...

[cpt_rhetoric]

"Would that it were. Would that it were..."

Allow Me to Rant About This

[Murdock037]

So, because these documents were forged, it means George W. Bush honorably and fully completed his commitment to the National Guard, right?

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. ...But it's not as if I really trust that anymore, either.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So, because these documents were forged, it means George W. Bush honorably and fully completed his commitment to the National Guard, right?

Well, actually ...yeah. Given that the only documentary evidence of misconduct that anybody has ever been able to cough up has turned out to be forged, yes, this basically means that the "Bush went AWOL" non-story can finally be put to bed once and for all.

There are idiots out there who will fight to keep it alive, of course, but there are people who insist we never landed on the moon, either.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Anonymous Coward]

I think in this case, the Bush administration is responding appropriately to the documents. If the evidence for the accusations is not credible, Bush should not have to defend himself against it. Saying "well, the documents are fake, but Bush should respond to these allegations" is setting a bad precedent. Imagine the massive fishing expeditions the media would engage in if they could just make stuff up, and then demand a response. They might get lucky and get somebody to admit somthing, or deny it and get caught in a lie when somebody finds some real evidence at some later date.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[n-baxley]

Actually, Bush has admitted that he is flawed and succummed to drug and alcohol use earlier in his life. For some reason you think he would admit to this but not to something as common place as getting into the national guard becuase of his parent's connections.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[ConceptJunkie]

You know, it's ironic that everyone is saying to just move on and get past the circumstances surrounding Kerry's Purple Hearts and Silver Star, because according to the military, he earned them and deserved them, and yet the DNC is beating up on Bush even though he received an honorable discharge, in other words, according to the military, he did his job.

How is that the military's word is good enough for one candidate and not the other. I would love to see one campaign where a double standard isn't so blatantly applied by either side. As it is, I need to keep duct tape wrapped around my head to keep it from exploding.

Here's an idea: Let's give Kerry credit for serving bravely and honorably and let's give Bush credit for serving, even if it wasn't in combat.

Here's the real question: Who's going to keep the Islamofascist nutjobs from blowing me up?!

I still can't see what tortured logic you are applying to blame this issue on the Republicans. Dan Rather destroyed himself (and he's been doing it for years). I didn't give him any credibility before all this happened. You ever hear the nickname "Red" Dan Rather? It's been around for years, even decades.

Courage, indeed. CBS has gotten to the point where they can't even pretend to be objective. I'd trust the National Enquirer before those clowns.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[spu]

As it is, I need to keep duct tape wrapped around my head to keep it from exploding. Glenn Beck fan, eh?

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[nathanh]

Well, actually ...yeah. Given that the only documentary evidence of misconduct that anybody has ever been able to cough up has turned out to be forged, yes, this basically means that the "Bush went AWOL" non-story can finally be put to bed once and for all.

Uhh, no, illogical conclusion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of non-absence :-)

There are idiots out there who will fight to keep it alive, of course, but there are people who insist we never landed on the moon, either.

Poisoning the well... interesting.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of non-absence

It most certainly is when you're talking about things like military service where dereliction of duty is documented. If (1) George W. Bush failed to carry out his assigned duties, and (2) no documentation to that effect can be produced, you have to conclude that (3) a ridiculously complex plot was carried out inside an Air Force warehouse in St. Louis involving the meticulous scouring of thirty-year-old records. That's a silly conclusion, so one of the two premises must be false. Since we know that #2 is true ...well, you can suss it out from there.

Poisoning the well... interesting.

Bein' a dumbass ...interesting.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[cgranade]

My god. This comment is enough to bring me out of a nearly year-long hiatus from posting to /..

Of course there is other evidence. Try this. In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL. In this case, since the military should have been keeping meticulous records, it is a reasonable conclusion that Bush was AWOL in lieu of any credible evidence to suggest that he did in fact show up for his duty at wartime.

By your idea of "logic," because there is no document saying there is not an invisible pink unicorn flying above your head, there must be. Here, there should be documentation of his service, but there isn't. Were this a case where we shouldn't expect records to exist, you'd be right. However, at fault is your assumption that a (fictious) lack of evidence to incriminate Bush in fact clears him. It does not. Furthermore, as I specified above, there is evidence to incriminate Bush. Take this quote from the article:

And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, ''A Charge to Keep,'' recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June 1970. ''I continued flying with my unit for the next several years,'' the governor wrote.

But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen.

I rest my case. Here, we have evidence to specifically incriminate him, and none to save him. Until further evidence is produced on this issue, there is no logical conclusion but that he failed in his duty, then lied about it.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Try this.

A Boston Globe story? You've got a lot of balls posting that link in here.

In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL.

Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.

Except for all that evidence, there's no evidence at all.

Hell, even CBS News admits that ample evidence of the president's honorable service exists.

Here, we have evidence to specifically incriminate him, and none to save him.

Oooh, one quote taken out of context and misrepresented. (He was talking about an event that happened in the winter of 1968, dumbass.)

You baffle me. "There's no evidence at all! Except for all that evidence, which doesn't count because the Boston Globe which never, ever lies told me so!"

Loser.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Anonymous Coward]

But shouldn't there be some documents somewhere that show that he did show up? I mean, more than just those dental records?

What you're saying is, "There's no documents saying he wasn't there, so he must have been there."

But that can be turned around: "There's no documents saying he was there, so he must not have been."

You can give me dental records and pay stubs, but all that tells me is that he got work done and a paycheck on the taxpayers' tab.

Unless you can show me a document saying he was physically present during the drills in question, or maybe a credible eyewitness, then you have to remain open to the idea that he was not there.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[nine-times]

"And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen."

I rest my case...

Hmmm... I find your case lacking. "..all but unaccounted for.." isn't quite the same as unaccounted for. If you read these lines carefully, it's clear that the writer is trying to lead you to believe that there are records of him being AWOL, when, in fact, the problem is that we don't have good records.

From all the debate over the whole "GWB is a deserter" debate, the only certain thing that can be gathered is that there are gaps in his service record. You can come up with conspiracy theories about him being AWOL and a cover-up, but there are still no records or witnesses to that effect.

In fact, I'd be willing to suppose that a lot of military/governmental records are missing, and a lot of military events are poorly documented. At least- more than you'd like to think. Barring a general conspiracy, which, admittedly, is possible, I'd be inclined to think there would be a greater likelihood of records of misconduct than records of him completing his duty. I mean, I certainly can't see an argument the paper that said "GWB showed up today, everything's fine" is less likely to get lost in the shuffle than "GWB went AWOL and should be court marshalled!"

So, you're definitely talking about a conspiracy, with no evidence to back it up. The argument seems to be, "We don't have all the paperwork, and it does seem many young men from powerfull families got preferential treatment, therefore GWB must have gone AWOL." That doesn't seem to be quite ready for me to say "case closed".

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Masker]

No, you're wrong. Lots of evidence exists that he didn't complete his commitments, and that he tried to scam the Texas ANG into letting him out of his service requirements.

Again, these memos were forged, and bad CBS for airing them. But:

1) The secretary that would have typed these memos said there were memos that were substantially the same as these that she did type. So, where are these memos? Were they, perhaps, destroyed? If so, who destroyed them?
2) This is not the only evidence that he didn't complete his commitment.
3) The story should not be "put to bed" because Bush is still lying about it, just like he lies about everything else.

Why the fuck is this being modded up as "Informative", anyway? There's no new information in this post, and, in fact, no other information other than the non-facts and opinions of Twirlip.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But shouldn't there be some documents somewhere that show that he did show up? I mean, more than just those dental records?

You mean like personnel cards and service records and pay records?

What you're saying is, "There's no documents saying he wasn't there, so he must have been there."

No, what I'm saying is that claims that he was not there have not been supported by any facts, therefore those claims are baseless.

You can give me dental records and pay stubs, but all that tells me is that he got work done and a paycheck on the taxpayers' tab.

Actually, what it tells you is that he was where he said he was and that the people who say that he wasn't are flat-out lying. But please don't feel an obligation to believe that or anything. Feel free to continue to be a dipshit.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Lots of evidence exists that he didn't complete his commitments, and that he tried to scam the Texas ANG into letting him out of his service requirements.

That is simply, bottom-line, no-kidding untrue. You're spreading falsehoods.

The secretary that would have typed these memos said there were memos that were substantially the same as these that she did type.

No, she certainly did not. Read the fucking transcript of the interview.

This is not the only evidence that he didn't complete his commitment.

Well, it's not evidence at all. But if it were, yes, this would have been the only evidence.

The story should not be "put to bed" because Bush is still lying about it, just like he lies about everything else.

Ah, yes. See? That's the great thing about the rabid, frothing Bush-haters. They can't compose more than about two paragraphs without spinning off into irrational hatred.

Yet another crazy person.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Watcher]

In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL. In this case, since the military should have been keeping meticulous records, it is a reasonable conclusion that Bush was AWOL in lieu of any credible evidence to suggest that he did in fact show up for his duty at wartime.
I don't mean to do something as horrendously logical as try to bring some sanity into this discussion on /., but may as well throw away my time on it. OK, you say that because we don't have evidence to prove that Bush was not AWOL, therefore he was. Right. However, do we have any credible (key word here) evidence to show that Bush was AWOL? No? No written records, noone coming forward and saying they were sent to arrest Bush for going AWOL? Nothing like that? Then how can you reasonably be certain that he wasn't AWOL? That he was, in fact, fulfilling his obligation? Without evidence to prove either case, as you have claimed, we can not make a conclusion here-the lack of evidence does not prove guilt, and choosing a scenario due to the lack of evidence because it may seem convenient to you is unwise.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah, but I'd heard that phrase before he came along.

Sick Freak Rick

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[cgranade]

A Boston Globe story? You've got a lot of balls posting that link in here.

Why? It's not as if it's Fox.

Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.

First off, honorable discharges are indeed bestowed upon the AWOL... if the AWOLee in question is the son of a rich and powerful man who pulls a few strings. Much more conclusive are first-hand accounts like these. As for the public record, what public record? Dental check-up? I hardly call a dental check-up flying a jet. If all you have to do to fulfill your wartime duties is to get a dental check-up, then Clinton and Kerry should both be fine!

Hell, even CBS News admits that ample evidence of the president's honorable service exists.

Quote sources, please.

Oooh, one quote taken out of context and misrepresented. (He was talking about an event that happened in the winter of 1968, dumbass.) You baffle me. "There's no evidence at all! Except for all that evidence, which doesn't count because the Boston Globe which never, ever lies told me so!" Loser.

Ad homenim attack if I've ever seen one. You can't produce anything concrete, so you resort to attacking me? And besides, I only tried to pick a representative sample. If you want something not from the Globe, do a search for awol bush on Google. Before you even say biased, realize that what will turn up are sites that link to news articles about the issue. Please at least look before you respond with another ad homenim. Your karma will thank you.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Masker]

That is simply, bottom-line, no-kidding untrue. You're spreading falsehoods.

Did you read the link that I sent you to? I know, I know, it would take a little while to read it, and you've been posting to Slashdot a lot, but take a little time and poke around in the White House released documents, and follow his analysis. It's pretty convincing, if you have any interest in being open-minded.

I said: The secretary that would have typed these memos said there were memos that were substantially the same as these that she did type.

You said: No, she certainly did not. Read the fucking transcript of the interview.

Sorry, I can't find a transcript link on CBS's site. Care to provide one? At any rate, they quote her as saying: "I know that I didn't type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct." And, more explicitly:

"These memos were not memos that you typed, and you don't think they came directly out of his files," Rather asked Knox.

"The information, yes," says Knox. "It seems that somebody did see those memos, and then tried to reproduce and maybe changed them enough so that he wouldn't get in trouble over it."

What would "those memos" be, but ones that held substantially the same information (and that she would have typed)? So, not true? Is she lying? Where's your evidence?

Ah, yes. See? That's the great thing about the rabid, frothing Bush-haters. They can't compose more than about two paragraphs without spinning off into irrational hatred.

It's hilarious that you're going to call me a "frothing Bush-hater" because I said that he lies about everything. Let's see a few of the things he's lied about:

1. Saddam has WMD and is ready to use them against the US.
   
2. His tax cuts are working.
   
3. We're winning in Iraq
   

I don't know, what else do you want? Since there's little-to-no-chance that you'll read those links & think about them, I'll post more only if you want me to respond to particular claims that Bush has made.

Yet another crazy person.

You were, of course, talking about yourself, right? Because, if someone credible came forward and said that "Bush did serve, I was there and here are some pictures", I'd have to say (as soon as the evidence was substantiated) that I was wrong to say that he's lying. Hell, I'll even email him an apology.

Are you willing to even consider that you're wrong about this? Can you think critically and question your deeply held beliefs? If not, then you're the one who is crazy.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[cgranade]

I believe that you misrepresent me. I did not claim that that was the only evidence, but assumed so, for the purpose of responding to earlier posts. As mentioned in some of my other posts on this thread, there are indeed many credible sources. To find them, just do a search for awol bush on Google. Yes, the results will be biased, but they will often link to other news sites to support their bias. This is probably what you are interested in, so I leave you to it.

Another way that I feel that I've been misrepresented is that you seem to feel that I am certian in my conviction. As a scientist-in-training, I feel that would be shameful of me. Rather, I have made a conclusion based on the best available data, and stand by it until presented with better data which contradicts. This data has yet to surface, so I shall act as if it does not exist, until I have a reasonable motivation to change this stance. Does that mean that I am taking this as on faith, or stand by it as an infalliable conclusion? No. Please don't misconstrue my meaning as such.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Moderator]

You do realize what AWOL stands for, and that "leave" has absolutely NO meaning in the reserves, right?

Bush was NOT AWOL.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[cgranade]

Absent w/o Leave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush was absent, and he did not have leave. If this isn't the correct term, then that's fine as well. Since he didn't fulfil his duty at wartime, deserter will work. That make you happy?

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[jtev]

Allow me to address point 3, we've lost less than 1000 soldiers in Iraq. We are on the way to free elections. While stockpiles WMD were not found, the basis for building them was. Last time I checked unless you're a bleeding heart panzy 1000 of our soldiers for conquering a rather large country counted as cheap. Last time I checked destroying all creadable resistance counted as winning. Yes there are a few terrorists and guerellas who are making our lives dificult, but still, we've done rather well.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Anonymous Coward]

Its easy to call someone a panzy when you're not the one of the soldiers in Iraq ducking bullets and also don't forget the 7,000 permanantly disabled soldiers in addition to the 1,000 that just died.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Veridium]

Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.

What I find most ironic about this is, all of these arguments do no good for Kerry when it comes to the claims of the swiftboat vets. He was given an honorable discharge at the time, was awarded medals at the time, with all proper military paperwork behind them.

Not that I'm concerned about Kerry's campaign, I'm not voting for him and was never intending to. Kerry's the other side of the same coin in my opinion. I guess the only reason it matters is that I'm really sick of hearing the right and left turn the presidential "debate"(and I'm using this word loosely here) into being about things that ALLGEDLY happened 30 years ago. Both sides choosing to believe whatever dirt, from whatever source that suits their agenda. I know, I know, "they" started it, you're all just poor victims of the "other" side.

Meanwhile, our debt is soaring, our economy is on shaky ground, Iraq is a quagmire, and the legislation against our rights continues its slow and steady march. But you geniuses on the left and right want to sling mud about alleged events from 30 years ago.

Excuse me if I remain unimpressed with the democrats and republicans. Vote 3rd party, stop the circus.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[geminidomino]

Allow me to address point 3, we've lost less than 1000 soldiers in Iraq. We are on the way to free elections

Actually, the losses broke the 1000 mark almost 2 weeks ago.

I'm sure those soldiers are proud that they died so that some asshat like you could call their lives "cheap"

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[nursedave]

But he did fulfil his duty. This is fact. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. He obtained 54 points when only 50 were needed for that year; he did his duty as ordered.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[nursedave]

Iraq is hardly a quagmire. Yes, there are Islamofascists killing people there, usually unarmed people as chickenshit dickheads usually do. But quagmire is simply an inaccurate term to use. Soldiers who are there, and Iraqi bloggers, tell a whole different story than you hear on the "news."

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[kevin lyda]

the older of the washington area snipers was given an honorable discharge and he spent time in the brig during his service.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[cgranade]

As I've said before, back it up. The burden of proof is on you here. An overwhelming amount of evidence has emerged to support the conclusion that he did not fulfil his duty, but all I have to show that he did his duty is your assurance and a dental record. As I've said before, the dental record proves nothing but that he got his teeth looked at. It does not show that he did his duty.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[nursedave]

No, the burden of proof is on you. All information points to the fact that he did, in fact, complete his duty and get an honorable discharge. You say otherwise. Fine. You must prove this. I can't just say, "Hey, did you ever stop beating your wife?" and then demand that you prove that you have.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[cgranade]

I tire of this. How much do you need? I have posted several links already, as have others before me. This is not a new issue... there were articles about it before the 2000 (s)election, and there are articles now. You want articles? Here:

• http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/02/ 02_802.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-200 4Feb2?language=printer
• http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0219-03.htm
• http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/2 0guard.htm

Some of these links are from admittedly conservative sources, others from admittedly liberal sources. They do discuss the releases of info by the WH on the issue, and all come to the same conclusion: the pay stubs and the dental record do not disprove the gap in service, but only support it. Now, as I have said before, I tire of this. You obviously have your opinion, which is fine. What wears on me, though, is your steadfast dedication to the expression of this opinion through falsehood. It is one thing to state that Bush is a "war president," or to state that he is at all presidential material. It's a clearly seperate thing, though, to state that Bush was obviously not AWOL. This is not an opinion, but a simply act of willful ignorance. Maybe Bush wasn't AWOL. I sure as hell don't know. What I do know, though, is that I have evidence supporting that he was AWOL, and none opposing. Thus, until the situation stands, it is not logical, nor reasonable to confuse this simple reality with opinion. What is the signifigance of this issue? Well, that's your opinion. What is the fact of the issue? That isn't.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Veridium]

Actually, I hear what you're saying on the news. Oddly enough. In between stories about cities falling into fundamentalist hands, but it's not a quagmire.

Did it ever occur to you people who pick your sides and argue predictably and dogmatically, that maybe people who don't play your little left/right game, mean something different when they say things than what you've been conditioned to believe they mean?

Maybe I didn't mean quagmire in terms of military success(though having cities fall under fundamentlist rule doesn't seem very successful). Maybe I meant it in the sense, that we can not leave because the current political regime is not strong enough to keep order and the whole country would fall to fundamentalists if we did. And if we continue to stay, we undermine the legitimacy of the current political regime as representing the people of Iraq. That is the reality we're in right now, and it seems very much like a quagmire.

As for this comment:
Yes, there are Islamofascists killing people there, usually unarmed people as chickenshit dickheads usually do

So are our soliders chickenshit dickheads when they kill unarmed people? Or are you not ready to deal with that particular reality yet?

I caught an interesting thing on ESPN with regards to the Iraqi olympic soccer team:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/gen/columns /story?id=1865386
Midfielder Ahmed Manajid told SI's Grant Wahl that if he weren't playing soccer, he'd be back in his home of Fallujah fighting the coalition. "I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?" he said. "Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq."
Yeah, but I'm sure this guy and his whole soccer team is a plant by the media to make it sound worse than they are. 90 percent of Iraqi's want us there of course. They sent us invitations in the mail. They are quite thankful we destroyed their water treatment plants, damanged hospitals, and killed(and continue killing) their people. I for one would welcome my new American bomb dropping, country invading, overlords if I were an Iraqi.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Dan the Control Guy]

BUSH did NOT show in Alabama. Bush did not even show up to campaign for Winton Blount. Bush is a coward.

I am so angry that everyone is discussing documents that have nothing to do with anything. There are LOTS of other sources that show:

1. Bush got preferential treatment
2. Bush did NOT serve his entire enlistment
3. Bush did not take a required physical, and lost his flight rating as a result
4. Bush left early.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Zebano]

Kind of like the swift boat veterans for truth?

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Yes, please, for the love of God, vote for a 3rd party. The sooner we get the crazy people out of the political parties and off into their own little wild-eyed fringe groups, the sooner we can stop talking about foolishness and get back to real issues.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

BUSH did NOT show in Alabama.

The official record says otherwise.

1. Bush got preferential treatment

There's zero evidence of that, just a malicious rumor spread by a former Texas politician with a grudge.

2. Bush did NOT serve his entire enlistment

Correct. In 1973, a bit over seven months before the end of his commitment, he requested and was granted early discharge. Oooh, scandal.

3. Bush did not take a required physical, and lost his flight rating as a result

Correct, except that "required" in this context means "required to maintain flight status," not "required to fulfill his service."

4. Bush left early.

We covered that one already.

Got anything else you're "so angry" about, you fucking freak?

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[nine-times]

I didn't misrepresent you. Let's recap. You said:

I rest my case. Here, we have evidence to specifically incriminate him, and none to save him. Until further evidence is produced on this issue, there is no logical conclusion but that he failed in his duty, then lied about it.

Well, what you were sighting as 'evidence' was, in fact, a statement that we lack any evidence to say what was going on at that time. The article had a clear anti-Bush bias, but when you boiled it down to the facts, what it said was some of Bush's military paperwork was missing. This is the consensus among every credible person I've heard from: we can't say exactle what went on, because we don't have all his paperwork, but we have no evidence that there was any wrongdoing. What we do have are some anti-Bush people who were around at the time alleging that Bush went AWOL, and some pro-Bush people who were there at the time saying he did what he was supposed to. And a lot of people saying, "Umm... I don't know?" But no evidence.

So I respond to your words 'case closed' by saying, "You haven't met your burden of proof."

And how am I supposed to take your statement that "...there is no logical conclusion but that he failed in his duty..." when placed next to your later statement "I feel that I've been misrepresented is that you seem to feel that I am certian in my conviction." "There is no logical conclusion but..." sounds an awful lot like whatever is going to follow will be said with some conviction.

So, if you were misrepresented, you misrepresented yourself. You tried to make your case, and your case didn't hold up.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[mrtrumbe]

Ah, yes. See? That's the great thing about the rabid, frothing Bush-haters. They can't compose more than about two paragraphs without spinning off into irrational hatred.

Yet another crazy person.

OK, this really pisses me off. In one breath you are bitching about people so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they sound like raving lunatics. In the next breath, you resort to name calling (an exercise of irrational hatred, if I've ever seen one).

And this is ain't the first time, either. Check out your other posts on this thread:

Good name-calling here. "Loser" is one of my favorites.

The venerable "Feel free to be a dipshit."

Everyone's favorite: "Bein' a dumbass ...interesting."

There are a ton of other examples, but I don't think I need to post them. /.ers should get the point by now.

And this has nothing to do with being overly sensitive. This is about your tactics. In just about every post, your response is, "No. Wrong. That is false. You are lying. Dipshit!!!!" In some posts you even try to pass off logical fallacies as valid. Basically you are just using name-calling and brute-force refutation without anything to back you up.

To take a play out of your book...

You suck, dipshit! Go home.

Seriously, can we please have a debate where disagreements don't result in name calling? It's infantile. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an idiot. Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to say something about logical fallacies: don't use them. It is really hard to debate a person who doesn't play fair (ie. stay within the bounds of logic). That is why most people don't even try.

Taft

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

In the next breath, you resort to name calling

I didn't resort to it. I reveled in it.

Check out your other posts on this thread

How sweet. I have a fan.

You suck, dipshit! Go home.

But ...I am home. So very confused.

Seriously, can we please have a debate where disagreements don't result in name calling?

Sure. As long as the ignorant fuckwits stay out of it.

Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to say something about logical fallacies: don't use them.

I'd like to say something about your something: grow the fuck up. "Ah! Ah! Logical fallacy!" may have impressed the girls in seventh grade, but this is grown-up time. If you want to have a conversation, have a conversation. If you don't, take your lame-ass cries of "fallacy!" and get off the field.

"But he's not playing by the rules! He's using dirty words and calling people names and committing logical fallacies!"

"Yes, but he's also right."

"But it's not fair!"

Waa waa waa.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Dan the Control Guy]

Listen up, shithead.

The Texas Politician "spreading rumours" is the one THAT PULLED THE STRINGS.

I served my time, with no influential Daddy to get me out (not that it would have mattered, I enlisted anyways).

I have a real problem with cowards. Bush is one, by definition. I have no problem with a war protester, who objects on principle, goes to Canada, whatever, at least they have the courage of their convictions.

People died in Nam back then, and the priviledged few escaped. My friends who died were not of the privileged few. Which one died so Bushie could stay home, asshole?

Now kids are dying in fucking Iraq, which did NOT have any WMD (they already used the ones we gave them on Iranians, when we didn't give a shit). They did NOT have any hand in 9/11. Hussein may have been a despot, but he was evidently cool when he was OUR despot. Nor was he any worse than the dozens of petty dictators we support EVERY goddam DAY.

Yeah, I got alot to be angry about, asshole.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[mrtrumbe]

Heh.

See, the thing about defying logic is that by doing so, your argument is invalid. Whatever conclusions you reach are not proven by your argument. Those conclusions may be correct, but not on the basis of your argument.

This is NOT a matter of fairness. This is about what constitutes truth. Your final statement seems to be, "It doesn't matter that my arguments are half-assed, full of holes and logically invalid. I'm right, dammit, so admit it!" Fuck that! Why the hell should I (or anyone else here) believe in your conclusion if you have given us no compelling arguments to back up your conclusion?

The short answer is that we shouldn't. All you have proven by your mindless and childish posts is how intellectual honesty is no longer important to the average American. There is this fucked up notion that "common sense" should overrule logic. "It doesn't matter that my arguments are full of holes! Believe me anyway! I just make sense! See!?!?!" Say it enough times and somehow you have credibility.

Well, it isn't good enough for me, or any other critically thinking American, for that matter. You have a point? Prove it. If you don't, I'm going to call you on it. And no manner of name-calling or berating will make you any more right. It will only serve to lower the quality of discourse here.

Hopefully the mods on this board realize that point. By the fact that your response to my observatives was met with a +3 Funny, I'm not so sure they will. Oh well...

Taft

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The Texas Politician "spreading rumours" is the one THAT PULLED THE STRINGS.

No, he's the one that says he pulled strings, that has said he pulled strings ever since 1994, but that cannot produce a single piece of documentary evidence or a corroborating witness to back up his story that he pulled strings.

He's also got a very old and very well documented grudge against Bush.

I have a real problem with cowards. Bush is one, by definition.

Oooh, yes, you're a real bad ass.

Now kids are dying in fucking Iraq, which did NOT have any WMD

Except they did, chemical, biological and radiological. But you just keep on insisting that they didn't have any, or that they didn't have enough, or that they didn't have the right kind, or whatever the spin of the week is.

They did NOT have any hand in 9/11.

No, they were just planning the next one.

Hussein may have been a despot, but he was evidently cool when he was OUR despot.

Which part of that sentence is the bad part?

Nor was he any worse than the dozens of petty dictators we support EVERY goddam DAY.

Name one.

Yeah, I got alot to be angry about, asshole.

If I were as ignorant and as foolish as you, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Need a hug?

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

See, the thing about defying logic is that by doing so, your argument is invalid.

And yet I'm still right. Shocker, huh? Amazing.

This is about what constitutes truth.

Right. Truth: George W. Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard, got one of many open spots for F-102 pilots willing to sign a six-year commitment, fulfilled his obligations, and was honorably discharged. Lie: George W. Bush got preferential treatment, didn't do what he was supposed to do, and failed to report for duty.

Why the hell should I (or anyone else here) believe in your conclusion if you have given us no compelling arguments to back up your conclusion?

Because it is a matter of fact. It's about what constitutes truth, remember?

All you have proven by your mindless and childish posts is how intellectual honesty is no longer important to the average American.

Cue the America bashing. Now talk about how we're all fat, and how we like country music, and how we're not educated and erudite.

There is this fucked up notion that "common sense" should overrule logic.

Yeah. Real fucked up.

If you don't, I'm going to call you on it.

That's worked so well so far. All you've managed to demonstrate to this point is that (1) you have no idea what we're actually talking about here, and (2) you're a superior sumbitch. What else would you like to share with the class?

Hopefully the mods on this board realize that point. By the fact that your response to my observatives was met with a +3 Funny, I'm not so sure they will.

Ah, but isn't that the logical fallacy of the consensus, also known as Plato's fallacy?

(See how incredibly stupid that sounds?)

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[mrtrumbe]

Your still doing it.

A: "I'm right."

B: "But your argument is full of holes."

A: "I'm still right."

B: "But you didn't prove anything."

A: "I'm still right."

B: "Prove it."

A: "I'm right."

Etc. Etc.

I wasn't America bashing. I'm sure that the exact same attitude is pervasive in many societies, not just our own. That doesn't exactly let us off the hook though, does it. When you can't argue with any substance, I guess you have to resort to cries of me being anti-American. Whatever.

I also find it funny that you equate adherance to logic with a lack of common sense AND a sense of superiority. Wierd, I always thought that adherance to logic was just, well, logical. If we don't look at the world through reasoning, thought and logic, how is truth even possible?

Finally, I did not use the Democratic fallacy. I'll leave it to you to actually look something up and figure it out for yourself. Have fun.

Taft

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Your still doing it.

That's "you're." See, it's a contraction. Short for "you are." Not the second-person possessive pronoun "your." Different. See?

I wasn't America bashing.

True, you were just Americans-bashing. That's much less offensive.

When you can't argue with any substance

Said the guy who has yet to actually, you know, say anything.

I also find it funny that you equate adherance to logic with a lack of common sense AND a sense of superiority.

Gee, where could I ever have gotten the idea that you're a superior sumbitch? Where could I ever have gotten that idea? It's a big mystery, that's what it is. Because, you know, you don't sound superior at all. You don't sound smug and self-satisfied. You don't sound like you have rod up your ass that's got a rod up its ass. So where could I have gotten that idea? Wherever could that idea have come from?

Guess it just came to me.

If we don't look at the world through reasoning, thought and logic, how is truth even possible?

Oooh, I bet that one really impresses the other freshmen.

Finally, I did not use the Democratic fallacy.

I should hope not ...seeing as how I made it up.

What a putz.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[mrtrumbe]

You, sir, are a troll.

You most certainly did not make up the fallacy of consensus (aka. the Democratic fallacy). Since you are too lazy to look it up (and so quick to assume), here is a link telling you what that fallacy means. (Note: it does not mean what you originally said.)

Quote: Gee, where could I ever have gotten the idea that you're a superior sumbitch? Where could I ever have gotten that idea? It's a big mystery, that's what it is. Because, you know, you don't sound superior at all. You don't sound smug and self-satisfied. You don't sound like you have rod up your ass that's got a rod up its ass. So where could I have gotten that idea? Wherever could that idea have come from?

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement and its tone?

Well, I've been baited long enough. You win, I responded to your childish and mindless posts. Congratulations.

Taft

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You, sir, are a troll.

Cue orchestra crash.

You most certainly did not make up the fallacy of consensus (aka. the Democratic fallacy).

Sure I did. I just pulled it right out of my ass. If it happened, by some striking coincidence, to coincide with something that somebody else pulled right out of their ass, that's certainly interesting.

Note: it does not mean what you originally said.

LOL! I made it up, you shithead.

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement and its tone?

Nope. Just you.

Well, I've been baited long enough. You win, I responded to your childish and mindless posts. Congratulations.

And yet again you wander off feeling smug, somehow oblivious to the fact that you have said nothing at all.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Veridium]

Yep. What sane person would choose to believe professional liars?

the sooner we can stop talking about foolishness and get back to real issues.

Yes, like who did what 30 years ago. Such a critical issue today.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Minna Kirai]

How is that the military's word is good enough for one candidate and not the other.

Uh... easy. Because you have people on one side (Swift Vote Veterans for Truth, for example), claiming that the opposing candidate contrived to abuse military records for his own benefit. By making that statement, they imply a distrust for the correctness of military records, and thus open up counterattacks which suggest their own candidate

I would love to see one campaign where a double standard isn't so blatantly applied by either side

It's only a double standard if one allows SBVT to claim that Kerry acted worse than the records indicate, and then to awards but to attack TfT on the grounds of questioning military accuracy.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Minna Kirai]

My god. This comment is enough to bring me out of a nearly year-long hiatus from posting to /..

Yeah, Twirlip is cool like that. He's supposedly running 3 different major troll accounts on alternating days. People like that inspire the creation of whole new classes of insults- "moron" doesn't work, "cretin" isn't much better... what's a concise term for "acts as if everyone else is an idiot"?

Twirlip is great at misdirection. He can divert any conversation towards a minor subpart where he's correct, and then he tries to strech that local correctness to apply to his entire position. You can't fall into that trap- once he focuses you down on a little detail, he'll never admit it's not the whole picture.

In this situation, the essential anti-Bush case is that his duty was to be a ANG pilot for 5 years, but he stopped flying after only 2. The ANG let him get away with this, probably because of family influence. Twirlip (and thousands like him) takes the fact that his commander cooperated in the dereliction makes it OK. That's circular reasoning, at best.

Furthermore, the pro-Bush side lures attackers into focusing on documents, when the far more damning evidence comes from the total lack of ex-Guardsmen who report having served with him in Alabama.

It's like a business employee claiming "Yes boss, I was at work 9-5 Friday. Look, my timecard is punched and everything". Anyone who believes that counts as evidence simply lacks imagination (or more likely, in the case of Twirlip, hopes that readers will)

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Minna Kirai]

But quagmire is simply an inaccurate term to use.

Quagmire: n, a difficult situation.

Right, it's not difficult, you say... go book your vacation in Baghdad then.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Minna Kirai]

what it said was some of Bush's military paperwork was missing.

And 100% of his military eyewitnesses.

You simply cannot serve for 6 months in a unit without meeting people who will remember you 30 years later. Somebody from the Alabama guard would've stepped forward with a recollection of working with Bush there.

For someone to claim to have served in a military unit, but to be unable to find any fellow veterans from the same unit... is just plain spooky.

(One person did, but he turned out to be a partisan liar, whose recorded service dates didn't overlap with Bush's at all)

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[ConceptJunkie]

By making that statement, they imply a distrust for the correctness of military records, and thus open up counterattacks which suggest their own candidate


So, two wrongs make a right. Yeah, that's politics for you.

At least Gore had the good sense to not drag up this nonsense, oh wait, it's not Kerry any more, it's the network news arm of his campaign: CBS.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[jtev]

I didn't call their lives cheap, however when you consider how many people die in one day in most wars, that few lives isn't very many.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[jtev]

Oh, and just so I have something to back that up, 35,000 people died invading Okinawa, one very small island in World War 2, compared to that a little over 1000 people is a very small cost to invade Iraq. http://www.worldwar2history.info/Okinawa/ At this rate we'll be able to hold Iraq for a very long time before we even aproach the cost of one tiny island in the pacific.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[geminidomino]

I never argued that it wasn't a small number of casualties. It was the usage of the word "cheap" that stuck in my craw.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[sckeener]

You know, it's ironic that everyone is saying to just move on and get past the circumstances surrounding Kerry's Purple Hearts and Silver Star, because according to the military, he earned them and deserved them, and yet the DNC is beating up on Bush even though he received an honorable discharge, in other words, according to the military, he did his job.

I find it highly tinfoilish, but I still would like to know...why were Bush's military records destroyed in 1996? Why does Bush have his driving records locked away? Why is Bush on anti-depressants? Why is Bush the only Texas Govenor to have his records locked away? Why is Bush Sr an ex-cia guy, the only ex-president requesting CIA reports? Why doesn't Bush Jr. talk with his father about these reports? Why didn't Bush Jr read his father's book before invading IRAQ since his father outlined all the problems we are currently facing there?

I know people say Bush is for family values, but whose family? The families of the soliders in IRAQ? Or the families of the rich? Which family does Bush's tax cuts help more in the long term? Who is going to pay the national debt? Is the company that is offsoring their workforce going to pay?

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[nursedave]

Nothing you posted had any proof of him being AWOL. You still don't get it - a person can't simply make something up and say it, and then expect people to not only take him seriously, but to expend effort defending against his stupidity. I don't think Kerry ever screwed his neighbor's cat, so don't twist this around, but if I said he did, and then said, "I have friends who saw it, " then later said, "Not one person can say he was not screwing the cat on such and such day," then I sound like a crackpot and Kerry owes me no answers or explanation. Not much else was said about Bush's being AWOL - some people wondered about it, then tried to make it an issue, then tried to get people to come forward to make it an issue - and it all failed. It is a non issue - before and after the forged cBS documents.

Bush wasn't AWOL.

You have shown no proof that he is, when the burden of proof is on you.

And those are the facts.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[AdireAudio]

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20040218084 0.asp It's been shown since March 204 that Bush did his time properly. Now, how about the other side - Kerry still has not released all his military records, and there are doubts about his receiving an honorable discharge, as well as not fully serving his time, and that in fact his honorable discharge was retroactively issued in the late 90s...

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Minna Kirai]

Since you are too lazy to look it up

Never, ever, call Twirlip lazy. He is one of the most intelligent, hard-working trolls you will ever meet. And he could take Scott McClellan's job in an instant if he wanted it.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[jtev]

Cheap : Low in cost.

The cost has been rather low for the liberation of that many people and that much land. Even with the continuing terroism we've had a suprizingly low cost for taking Iraq, at least in lives.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Anonymous Coward]

chile ring a bell? OH OH! How about OSAMA BIN LADEN? hows that?

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Zareste]

That's what Fox told us to believe, so by God, it's the conspiracy theory we have to believe!

I'm so glad Fox proved themselves so thoroughly on the issue: "We think Kerry r bad. People who don't believe us r conspiring aliens who will eat your brains."

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Zareste]

Well most of it has a fairly obvious explanation: Very few politicians would dare speak out against the republican party while they have control of America. Wouldn't want a family member to disappear or anything. But the the other problem is that most of the media is controlled by conservatives, not so much the White House, and the most damaging elements to a conservative's concepts are the facts and nonconservative testimonies, so the facts are simply being changed to fit a few aristocrats' political ideals.

It centers mostly around Fox News, which is now indistinguishable from Jerry Springer and preaches Bush on every possible occasion. You'd notice they're using this opportunity to make people stop watching CBS news. They're hardly even trying to hide it - even the biggest idiot who watches Fox News and Ricky Lake daily can point this out.

If you ever saw Outfoxed, it sheds quite a bit of light on these tactics. You'd have better luck getting your news from the bearded guy on the street who says the world will end tomorrow than to listen to the abundance of conservative nut jobs on tv.

Oh and yeah, good luck with the whole voting thing. Somebody who has the White House can appropriate far more money, control far more people and rig many more votes than someone who doesn't. You'd be astounded at how many people think we found WMDs in Iraq: A third to a half of the public last I read.

Democracy was doomed a long time ago, but it's even more useless when the people in office have mastered every information-control technique of the Nazi party, China and Hussein combined, and have the media on their side to boot.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[ConceptJunkie]

It's no conspiracy, though, because it's no secret where "Gunga" Dan's bias and preferences lie, and there hasn't been any question of that for 20-plus years. Courage, indeed.

I'm not surprised that he would risk his career to attack Bush, just that he would do so in a such an pathetic way. After all, it took him two weeks to admit something was fishy about those documents, about 13 days longer than the rest of the world.

The worst part about is the whining that "Even if the documents are fake, they're still right." That is the most irresponsible journalism, because they don't have anything to back it up. I'm left concluding that no one can prove it either way, but, well, like Kerry and his medals, I just don't care.

Rather than digging through the detritus of activities from 35 years ago, perhaps CBS could try reporting something newsworthy. As a last laugh, the Memogate story (which the document experts advised against running) supposedly bumped an Ed Bradley piece accusing the Bush Administration of being duped by fake documents in the Nigeria uranium situation.

Foolishness is not courage, Dan.

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[Zareste]

Obviously there's no conspiracy, but that never stopped Fox from trying to invent one. Dan had the misfortune of giving a report that could hurt the reputation of another psychotic conservative, and Fox was never one to stand by while people blatantly unclose facts to the public, as facts have always been the biggest blow to the conservative standpoint and could ruin them.

Hence we learned that the documents "could, if looked at the right way, maybe twisted a little, might possibly under some circumstances be fake, so you must obey Bush."

People here and there might want to believe whatever Fox tells them in order to keep them away from other news sources - and that's fine; people can think what they want - but all too often they need to be put in their place and reminded that believing every unfounded claim Fox makes is just leading them to a dead end.

"This is Fox News reminding you that unbiased networks are wrong. Jerry Springer is next."

Re:Allow Me to Rant About This

[ConceptJunkie]

Fox was never one to stand by while people blatantly unclose facts to the public

I don't even know what this means, or why you keep bringing up Fox. This has nothing to do with Fox.

This has everything to do with a long-time prominent news anchor going against his advisors to run a story with a clearly faked source, to attack someone against whom he clearly has a bias. If you think it's somehow far-fetched that these documents aren't real, then I suggest you look here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-20 04Sep13?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A300 43-2004Sep17.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A317 27-2004Sep18.html

and especially, this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/dail y/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

I suggest you quit drinking the Kool-Aid and actually take a look at what's happening. This isn't the first time Dan Rather has aired false, but easily discredited, material.

New Democratic line

[NaCh0]

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.

Micheal-Moore-Documentary Style ...

[c.ecker]

... 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!

Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS!

[wonkavader]

The damage of these memos was not to CBS, or to the Globe or to Bush but to the STORY. The story was well researched, includes a lot of interviews, (including, now, to the secretary who says "I didn't type those. But I typed ones that said about the same thing.") and military records.

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.

Dan, What's the frequency?

[nsaspook]

http://www.mindsetcentral.com/frequencykenneth.htm l/

There's no libel here

[PhysicsGenius]

The charges themselves have been all but corroborated by the White House and certainly nobody is denying the content is true. The only (campaign) issue is whether these actual embodiments are from the time period they claim to be. That appears to be false, but notice how this relatively minor point has come to dominate the debate.

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document? 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.

(The forgery/whatever question is interesting from a 'trust in media' standpoint, but from a "is Bush reliable or a security flip-flopper" viewpoint it is irrelevant.)

Re:There's no libel here

[HMA2000]

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?

WTF? Did you really type this?

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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?

Re:There's no libel here

[lynx_user_abroad]

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?

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?

Re:There's no libel here

[Watcher]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[nathanh]

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document? 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.

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[angst_ridden_hipster]

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.)

Re:There's no libel here

[recursiv]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[eskezl]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Anonymous Coward]

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!"

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[ClosedSource]

"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.

Re:There's no libel here

[js7a]

I don't think it matters whether the documents were cut-and-pasted, or even made up entirely. Kevin Drum explains why here.

Re:There's no libel here

[angst_ridden_hipster]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[recursiv]

I'd love to see some if you'd care to provide some. On the other hand, you could just keep it a secret.

Re:There's no libel here

[bluGill]

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)

Re:There's no libel here

[jc42]

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? ;-)

Re:There's no libel here

[E_elven]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Anonymous Coward]

George HW Bush was never a Senator. Therefore, your opinion is revealed as belonging to an ignorant person.

Happy to help.

Re:There's no libel here

[commodoresloat]

That's not correct.

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a subtle troll?

There's nothing subtle about Twirlip's trolls.

Re:There's no libel here

[nursedave]

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?

Re:There's no libel here

[iocat]

This is why you don't forge documents, Genius. Because if you forge a doc to nail home your (true) point, 99% of the people say "oh, they forged that document, all thoise charges are bullshit."

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[jc42]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Watcher]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Dan the Control Guy]

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

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Hell, Molly Ivins new about this YEARS ago.

Well, hell! It must be true if Molly Ivins says so!

Re:There's no libel here

[jc42]

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. ;-)

Re:There's no libel here

[Dan the Control Guy]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[commodoresloat]

What drugs are you on? There was no meeting in Czechoslovakia, at least the CIA doesn't believe there was, and they investigated it. There have been no WMD found, and no evidence of the Iraqis moving them around. You're making this stuff up! Or maybe you heard it on Rush Limbaugh. What it has to do with Bush neglecting his guard duty, which the White House has admitted, I don't know. Your sig is the best though:

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[joss]

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 ?

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[workindev]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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]

Re:There's no libel here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Completely random. Take the crack pipe out of your mouth before posting again, dipshit.

Re:There's no libel here

[workindev]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/kurtz.how ard.html

Re:There's no libel here

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Blue Neon Head]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[workindev]

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.

Re:There's no libel here

[Matt Apple]

Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document? The point is that Bush dropped the ball when he was supposed to be defending the country in the 1970's

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.

Re:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

If the story was so well researched

[NaCh0]

Why did they need to pull a fraud to prop up their argument?

Obviously the truth isn't on the rabid anti-Bush side as much as these fervent liberals think it is. Luckily the general public can see through these left-wing media tricks.

Admission of guilt is actually a good thing

[AnwerB]

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.

Re:Admission of guilt is actually a good thing

[kalidasa]

The whole problem here is that the potential moderators don't have enough evidence or knowledge to accurately moderate the news. Look, I know from my mods that most of the time when I make a political comment, if the mods reflect the repllies, that liberals mod me up and conservatives mod me down - regardless of whether or not they know that what I'm saying is true. There are some exceptions - mostly conservatives who respond politely or constructively or at least logically and rationally, and who I assume would mod me up if I were making some kind of sense regardless of whether or not they agreed with my thinking. But for the most part, mods on news and political comment will be polarized and partisan.

So no, I think it is unlikely such a system would work.

What a great point...

[LoveLiberty2004]

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

Re:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[LoveLiberty2004]

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

entirely implausible

[Anonymous Coward]

entirely implausible

Remember that Karl Rove is widely suspected of bugging his own office so that he could blame it on the opponent of the guy he was working for at the time. Setting up CBS sounds like the sort of scheme he might pull.

Re:entirely implausible

[Twirlip of the Mists]

"It's a widely believed fact!"

Re:entirely implausible

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a point?

Welcome to "even worse"

[switcha]

Of course, if they did not believe the documents to be authentic, but ran the story anyway, that would be even worse.

From ABCNEWS.com,

Two of the document experts hired by CBS News now say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of 60 Minutes II about the disputed National Guard records attributed to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
...

emphasis mine

And keep reading the link for more who called 'shenanigans' before the piece went to air.

already decided

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/Marc h/02/AppelateCourtRules2.htm

"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".

Cat Got Your Democracy?

[Rie Beam]

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...

Re:Cat Got Your Democracy?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If every shit-for-brains dickhead who threatened to move to Canada actually would, this country would be a much nicer place.

I think we should establish a "Get The Fuck Out" fund, a non-profit charitable organization whose purpose is to help liberal crapweasels and libertarian freaks secure the funding they need to pay for a one-way ticket to wherethefuckever.

Who's with me?

Re:Cat Got Your Democracy?

[jefurii]

as much as liberals may wish for more agreeable neighbors, just imagine an entire USA full of people like Twirlip with nobody to hold them back. Canada wouldn't be a refuge for very long if that were to happen. no, we gotta fight to keep things sane right here in the States...

Re:Cat Got Your Democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, make wherethefuckever Cuba and I'll donate.

But please, don't send 'em up here to Canada :(

Re:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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?

My two answers

[fmaxwell]

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.

Stuff that seems to have been forgotten

[eskezl]

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...

Re:Stuff that seems to have been forgotten

[overunderunderdone]

No, all four (six really*) are fake. They all have the same typographical anachronisms. The White House "released" all four, initially without comment. But, they made clear in response to inquiries that they were just forwarding the memos that CBS had provided to them to the other news agencies.

At worst the only Republican dirty trick you can reasonably infer from this is that after having them for a few hours they concluded they were fake and assisted CBS in gathering sufficient rope to hang themselves with.

More likely though the WH press office was simply extending a courtesy to the WH reporters present who, aside from the CBS reporter, would be unlikely to have documents that were going to be much discussed. This makes a lot of sense as part of damage control because having a bunch of aggressive reporters asking questions about "incriminating" documents that they don't actually have the text of or fully understand is a sure-fire way of getting a lot of miscommunication and misunderstandings that would result in dozens of different not-quite-right accusations in the news and dozens of fires for the press office to put out rather than just one. Better to get the one accusation out there to all of the press accurately no matter how apparently damaging.

*interesting side note: CBS actually had SIX memos, they kept two back though in the aftermath they acknowledged they had them. USA Today had also gotten all six independently from CBS. The question is why didn't they include these two in their original report? One of the document examiners they hired that spoke out against CBS had examined only one of these two unreported documents. The tin-foil hat possibility this little fact raises is the possibility that CBS had suspicions about the docs themselves but wasn't willing to nix the story so they shopped around for agreeable experts by having different experts each examine only one or two docs so that one bad opinion would only invalidate one doc rather than the whole parcel while a good report on just one could by be extended to the whole parcel as they did with Marcel Matley (who only examined two docs but was reported as having authenticated all four). The bad report came in on that one or two docs, so they were cut from the story. "Shody" doesn't begin to describe the situation if that is the case.

Forging = felony?

[aggiefalcon01]

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?

Re:Forging = felony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask Novak.

It's often illegal to destroy them

[Anonymous Coward]

As the Bush people are alleged to have done. The fact is unlike Kerry's case, they can't find documents (which should exist) to contradict the claims made in the papers put forth by Burkett.

It is undisputable, Bush hid in the national guard, with the aid of his father's influence, because some poorer less pedigried American son was thought more deserving to kill and possibly die in his place. A Yale economics professor, members of the Texas air national guard, prominent Texas politicians, and a pile of missing paperwork from an organization that's brilliant at producing and maintianing paperwork, can't all be wrong. Even Killien's secretary said the content of the CBS memos reflected his views at the time.

Bush is a coward who would hide behind the sacrifice of better men, and then later impune their character, a character he's sorely lacking. He skiped an alert in Air Guard, and he took a vacation and didn't read his briefing about Bin Laden in August 2001. These facts might not be unrelated. Lazy cowards and national security just don't go together.

Boston Globe

[Anonymous Coward]

A Boston Globe story? You've got a lot of balls posting that link in here.

You seem to be confusing Slashdot with Free Republic.

Screw both liars.

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Your fanaticism is showing.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Your fanaticism is showing.

[c.ecker]

You're correct ...

You realize that the statement of the obvious is optional here on /., right?

CBS and Rather are totally at fault here.

[Shivetya]

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.

Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

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 Rove talks with George W. Bush

[jgardn]

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.

Re:Karl Rove talks with George W. Bush

[PowerEdge]

They already came up with that film, it was called Fahrenheit 9/11.

Re:Karl Rove talks with George W. Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

You should also put a film together on Karl Rove. The man is a complete genius (unlike GW). He managed to get a complete moron into the whitehouse, and may keep him there for a second term, all through careful campaign planning, encouraging dirty politics, yet keeping his and his candidates noses clean. (who did the racist "push polling" in the previous election again?) I don't know if Karl pulled this latest trick or not, but you have to hand it to him. He attacks his opponent's strengths. If the man is generous, he attacks that. If a man is a war hero, he attacks that. Doing that puts doubt in the voter's minds... they like to compare a candidate based on their strenghts and attacking that very strength is what Karl Rove does best.

Anybody that could get GW Bush elected to the presidency of the goddam UNITED STATES is a force to be reckoned with. I wish he'd try working for good instead of evil. He could accomplish a lot!

What is false?

[Anonymous Coward]

That statement is completely false.

Are you suggesting that he is a small GOP hack?

That's great.

[Anonymous Coward]

You truly are the master of the straw man tactic.

Re:That's great.

[N3WBI3]

How is that a straw man? That is exactly what people here are saying.

Tinfoil Hat Now dont get me wrong I am not saying that Rove did do this, all I am saying is that he is capable of it, Its likely Rove wanted this to happen! Roave rove rove, but I dont think that we should excuse CBS rove rove rove..

Nothing

[xpccx]

I think the lawsuit against Fox over bovine growth hormone proves that this will cost them nothing. From what I gather, Fox reporters were pressured by Fox executives to alter their news story in order to paint a prettier picture about the effects of BGH. When the reporters didn't change the story they were fired. A lawsuit insued and Fox has won on appeal because, get this, the FCC doesn't require news agencies to tell the truth.

So, whether this was done on purpose or accidentally, from a legal perspective it matters little.

Re:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[overunderunderdone]

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)

You're ignoring the truth

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Bad intel - WMD and WNG (W Natl Guard)

[code_rage]

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.

Re:Bad intel - WMD and WNG (W Natl Guard)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, think of it: Three thousand people die in 9/11. As a consequence, Bush people start a war with a completely unrelated country (which is actually secular, not even Islamic); one thousand soldiers die; the civil population, the one that is being brought to FREEDOM, dies by thousands (nobody counts). These numbers are sick.
And nobody doubts them.

Meanwhile, we are talking DWIs (acknowledged) and AWDs (nobody expects to find out too much heroism here), and question whether Kerry was under this much fire or that much fire? Should not we get beyond the middle school?

Re:Bad intel - WMD and WNG (W Natl Guard)

[Remlik]

FYI: Joe Wilson testified to congress that he in effect lied about having any knowledge from Niger as he wasn't even there until 8 months after the entire episode and documentation took place. Therefore his statments reguarding yellow cake are false.

It made the Washington Post but no where else...wonder why?

Re:Bad intel - WMD and WNG (W Natl Guard)

[Tailhook]

You would think after the fiasco about media credulity of Iraq WMDs, the media would be more suspicious of this sort of thing.

Here is ABC reporting on connections between bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and WMDs. That was 5 years ago. The difference is back then Clinton needed support for throwing cruise missiles into Iraq/Sudan/Afgahnistan whenever someone significant was in front of Ken Star's grand jury.

Even old pros like Rather need to learn: just because evidence seems to fit does not make it true.

Dan is an "old pro" because he doesn't get caught very often. When he does get caught he errors on the Left 100% of the time, just like his contemporaries.

Elite media goes wherever the Left needs it to go.

From worse to radioactive

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the story is going from simply bad to radioactive:

WASHINGTON - CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard.

Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

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.

Aha! A conspiracy theory!

[spitzak]

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.

You are anacephalic

[nursedave]

The worst Democrat is better at jobs and growth than the best Republican

Wow, isn't this the biggest pile of horseshit I've ever seen.

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.

Re:You are anacephalic

[js7a]

Did you click the link? Those statistics span 80 years.

let's get this straight...

[kevin lyda]

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.

Re:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[LoveLiberty2004]

Well, I guess the whole controversy over Bush's election is just a figment of my imagination then. Is it possible to have a discussion about a thing when you cannot acknowledge even the basic facts about a thing? Obviously if you like Bush, my perception and yours of the end result will differ.. but to call either an "out and out lie" is, well, an "out and out lie." Perhaps you don't think the electoral vote should reflect the popular vote or that every vote should be counted.

Either way, I wish you well... I think you need some good energy in your life. :)

Who Really Cares?

[Shihar]

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.

The most important fact

[Dan the Control Guy]

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)

Re:The most important fact

[yaddayaddayadda]

Did you fight in Vietnam? Bush is a dick?
So, Bush did what he could to stay out of Vietnam, and liberals attack him for this?
Ummm...
1. EVERYBODY was wrong about the war in Vietnam. That was a messed up time in recent history. I'd say the communists that slaughtered 2million cambodian civilians were the most wrong, but wtf? 2. Dude, where was Clinton during the Vietnam War? Oh ya, Great Britain 3. When was the last time George Bush ... f-this posting bs, I'm off to write my own blog, and, if you don't understand my logic there, well, I feel sorry for your family and friends

The real victim

[quarrelinastraw]

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.

Re:The real victim

[Dan the Control Guy]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09 /08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040927&s= ba ker

Re: the real victim

[browncs]

I can't see anything that CBS has done wrong from a purely journalistic point of view.

I guess that's true in some technical sense, but this is like saying "Watergate was OK because the system worked". Without Bernstein and Woodward shining a light on it, there probably would never have been the Nixon impeachment and resignation. Without the bloggers igniting the firestorm of doubt of these documents, CBS would never have backed off their story.

Wooodward and Bernstein launched a generation-plus of a brand new style of investigative journalism, moving from the old cronyism to the new hostile relationship between the press and the government.

"Memogate", like Watergate, is much more than just another mistake-correction cycle by a news organization. It is another sea change in the nature of journalism. Never again will a news organization stonewall against the "pajama brigade" of the Internet as CBS did. The stakes are too high. If CBS News does not sink completely, it has taken a major blow, which will take years to recover from.

Re: the real victim

[BCW2]

If CBS news had not sought anything to help a planned agenda, they would not have been caught. They went in search of anything to make Bush look bad because they want the election to go the other way. That is not journalism by any definition. If they just objectivly reported the news, they wouldn't be the news, but they would be honest.

Re:The real victim

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to react to you, but being a natural idiot is probably hard enough on you, so I'll leave that alone.

Re: the real victim

[Anonymous Coward]

That's, quite frankly, absurd. The conservative bloggers are part of the pro-establishment media. Plus, they had no evidence about what they were reporting. Moreover, the thing the bloggers were alleging (that the memos were forged) haven't turned out to be true.

Re: the real victim

[quarrelinastraw]

There is no evidence at all that CBS was pursuing an agenda, unlike, say the conservative bloggers whose agenda was to discredit the story. I am not sure why you believe that CBS was trying to "make Bush look bad," when media coverage of Bush has been on the whole appalingly fawning. Judging from your post, this is exactly the sort of thing that should not result from the CBS fallout. It appears to me as if you've bought into the "liberal media" mythology and have pegged CBS as one of those media outlets (in conjunction with academics, blacks, women, homosexuals, and poor people) who are out to "get" the president. Moreover, it appears as if you took the admission by CBS that they were not positive about the document trail to mean at least (1) that they made up the story, but probably you alo believe (2) that the documents were forged, or (3) were furnished by the Kerry campaign. I'm not denying that these are possible, but I am stating that there is absolutely no evidence for them.

Re: the real victim

[browncs]

The conservative bloggers are part of the pro-establishment media.

Not only do I not agree with that -- I can't even objectively imagine how anyone else could believe that.

Do you think the "conservative bloggers" are centrally controlled by a secret media cabal or something?

I just have no idea where that thought could possibly come from.

Plus, they had no evidence about what they were reporting.

The whole blogger thing was exactly about evidence -- the PDFs of scans of the documents in question.

Moreover, the thing the bloggers were alleging (that the memos were forged) haven't turned out to be true.

On the scale from "absolutely certain to be genuine" to "absolutely certain to be forged", these documents are at least 80% of the way to the "forged" end of the scale (and I'm being generous). Even CBS News now admits that it cannot vouch for their authenticity. Almost all other media, including such establishment outfits as the Washington Post and USA Today, are basically saying they are most likely forged. How can you make your statement in light of that?

Re:The real victim

[dcmeserve]

Looks like Dan Rather finally got himself necklaced, as he worried about a couple of years ago.

I feel sick.

Re: the real victim

[BCW2]

Then try to explain why Rather was saying that Vietnam was not important and shouldn't have any bearing on the election just five months ago. Now he goea for this story and gets the shaft over it. That producer should be fired. It doesn't really matter though, all network news will be irrelevant by the next election. They allready are, with their total lack of objectivity, just to stupid to know it.

When the Colonel's son says that it's not his Dads signature, I start believing it's forged. Even CBS isn't that stupid. But someone used their own prejudice to con the hell out of them.

Re:Look at the those MEMOS! Look only at the MEMOS

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

the media can legally lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us not forget that FOX news and Florida has already ruled that the media can legally lie.

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.

CMW REPORT, Spring 2003 Title: "Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie" Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004 Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection" Author Not Listed

Reality may be fake, bloggers warn

[Anonymous Coward]

A defining moment for bottom-up journalism.

and this excuses CBS how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if this suggested conspiracy was true how would it excuse the actions of Dan Rather and CBS?

Insightful my ass, wishful thinking is more like it. Its dolts that rated you insightful that keeps /. a laughing stock outside of its true techinical stories.

A politics section was the last thing /. ever needed. Just too much Bush hate in Taco that he had to have a vent.

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)

Honest mistake my a...

[yaddayaddayadda]

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.

Cite please

[code_rage]

"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.

Re:Cite please

[Remlik]

Read it yourself here.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4405

Joe Wilson's main claim to fame was that there were indescrepencies with the dates and what not of the documents and that therefore they were fake/forged whatever.

But as you said, if he in fact never saw the documents how could he have known there were any indescrepencies? You've answered your own question but go read the site anyway, it has all the tasty bits you need.

Re:Cite please

[code_rage]

Instead of reading the interpretations of the American Daily and the Washington Post, I looked at the Senate report conclusions (PDF referenced on the washington post article).

Wilson said the documents were forged. That he never saw the documents himself does not change the fact that they were forged. He was assigned to go to Niger and make the rounds of government officials he knew from his previous duties there, to try to determine whether there was any reason to believe there was a deal in spite of the bogus documents. He reported his conclusions to State, and when President Bush raised the issue in the SOTU Wilson blew the whistle.

I've seen nothing that says Wilson lied, "in effect" or otherwise. So he stated to the Washington Post that the documents were forged -- so what? Everyone agrees that they were forged. Unless you can find a quote where he said that he examined them and determined that they were forged, he didn't lie.

More importantly, Wilson accurately reported what he (didn't) find on his little excursion to Niger. He conducted an impartial investigation and when the President publicly misused (in Wilson's view) intelligence, he called him on it. Nothing wrong with that.

Re:Cite please

[Remlik]

Your logic has me confused. A man makes a damning statement about documents he has never seen, specifically pointing out that names and dates were wrong. Without seeing the documents how would Mr. Wilson even know whos names and what dates were wrong?

His comments have no merit.

Re:Cite please

[code_rage]

This is my last comment on this. I sense that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. You seem to be hung up on one statement (which I have not seen) to the Washington Post, which matters much less than what he said to the goverment about his mission. By the way, if your standard is perfection, then no one who led us into Iraq has any credibility... but that's another debate, and this one has reached its conclusion.

He reported to the US govt that he interviewed govt officials in Niger, where he had personal contacts from his previous posting there. He was not asked to examine the forgeries. His specialty is not in verification of documents, he is a career diplomat. It became public knowledge that the documents were forgeries. It would not surprise me if Wilson commented to this effect.

The Senate concluded that Iraq did not have a nuclear program. Wilson's conclusions were correct, and those that believed there was a nuclear program were wrong. His conclusions were not based on the documents but on personal interviews with officials in Niger who are supposed to know what's going on with their mines, ore processing facilities, and exports.

This article http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-20 04Jul9 has some links to the PDF's of the Senate report. I read enough of the "Conclusions" that I think Wilson has been found credible in his methods and his conclusions.

Re:Cite please

[Remlik]

Agreeing to disagree aside one last comment/question if you would entertain it.

Wouldn't you think it possible that Iraq may have been trying to purchase nuclear materials for sale to other nations/groups?

Last I heard Tony Blair and the others that backed the original story are still backing it as truth.

Perhaps Iraq did not, or could not have a nuclear program becasue of inspections/sanctions but that would not stop them from helping other nations (Iran, Syria, Libia...etc) having hopes of trading this material for refined material later.

Its just a thought, and a rather frightening one at that.

Re:Cite please

[code_rage]

Saddam had a long history of pursuing weapons programs. It's possible that he decided to change tactics and find any way possible to harm the US, including via a proxy. But most of what I have read indicates that his goals were (a) to control domestic opponents and boost his image within Iraq, (b) to shake free of the sanctions imposed after Desert Storm, so that he could return to weapons production and (c) to become powerful in the region (he saw his destiny as being a modern Saladin). Mark Bowden wrote a profile of Saddam (origins, personality, goals) in the May 2002 Atlantic Monthly (not on-line, but your library likely has it).

Tony Blair said that the intel on which the Iraq war was predicated was faulty -- quoted this morning on NPR's Morning Edition. I think the original interview was on a British talk show. The statement was too vague for me to tell if he was talking about the bogus Niger deal specifically or the bigger picture of nuclear refinement (Aluminum tubes), poison-dispensing UAVs, mobile bio-weapons labs etc. I think it was probably the latter.

I poked around to see what Google turns up for "tony blair niger iraq uranium", and one story is consistent with some others I've read recently. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/09/05/wuran05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/05/ ixworld.html

It says that the intel services and govt leaders are all pointing at one another over the Niger forgery. They are trying to identify who created and passed the forgeries. UK is pointing at France, France is pointing at Italy, etc.

It's not clear to me that Saddam ("Iraq: c'est moi") would find it in his interest to help any other nation in the region, since his greatest desire was to be the modern Saladin (perhaps his belief was reinforced by having been born in Saladin's birthplace, Tikrit -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin). It's difficult for me to believe there was any relationship between Saddam and Iran, since Iran and Iraq are historical and contemporary enemies. He invaded Iran twice, and he was oppressing the Shia majority for both political survival as well as revenge for their abortive uprising after Desert Storm. I suppose anything's technically possible, but Iran-Iraq collusion makes little sense for this any many other reasons.

Collusion with Libya, Syria? I suppose it's possible, but consider this. If you wanted to buy something illicit (say some marijuana), and a particular person was known to be under continuous surveillance, would you buy it from him? Seems like a good way to get caught. Libya seems to have gone directly to the source (AQ Khan). And if Iraq had been able to acquire some Uranium in spite of the sanctions and inspections, why would they sell it to a potential rival? I admit that Saddam did things that don't make sense in my worldview, but such actions would seem to conflict with his own worldview.

What about Saddam helping Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that oppose the US? Again, it was in the realm of possibility, but there was apparently no reason to believe before the invasion that there was any assistance, nor has any such evidence come to light since. Although a rational person might think Saddam would "exploit" such groups if he thought he could do it undetected, his grandiosity might explain why he did not. Saddam, the modern Saladin, deal with the cave-dwelling leaders of AQ?

The question of nukes in the middle East is a frightening one indeed. There is no doubt that Saddam wanted nukes -- he had a prodigious program until the Israelis bombed it. Libya was pursuing nukes and now claims to have given them up (I have no reason to trust a terrorist like Qaddafi, so I hope the inspections are thorough). I think just about everyone believes that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons under cover of nuclear energy programs. And if Iran achieves the bomb, experts expect Saudi and Egypt to get it next.

Meanwhile, no one has been given a complete account of the activit

Your troll skills are weak ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

... 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.

;-)

Re:Your troll skills are weak ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have humbled me to the point of postng AC. Well done.

Kill messenger: Same is true for Dems and Kerry

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

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. Think about how police separate witnesses. It is well established that when witnesses talk and compare notes there is contamination.

Re:Kill messenger: Same is true for Dems and Kerry

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the vets who were actually on Kerry's boat are remarkably consistent in their accounts of Kerry's actions, and their beliefs that he deserved the medals he got.

See this column from this week's NY Times . (As always with Times links, registration required, and it's only free for a week.)

From what I can tell, the differing stories all come from people who were on other boats. The Swift Boat group particularly bothers me, because they've gotten so much traction in the media without any verifiable evidence whatsoever.

Re:Kill messenger: Same is true for Dems and Kerry

[AHumbleOpinion]

From what I can tell, the differing stories all come from people who were on other boats

I think that is largely correct and I do not challenge Kerry's service or decorations. Anyone who served in the military in any capacity at any time deserves respect. Anyone who saw combat, even once, deserves additional respect. How many guys got killed on their first day out?

That said, being on a different boat does not discredit the other men who were there, their boats were in the same action only yards, maybe feet, apart. Neither does one crew largely having the same recollection necessarily indicate accuracy. Memory is too fragile. The medical research I referred to pointed out that when vets talk about events with eachother new memories form, old memories have "details" filled out. I think all the men on those boats are being honest. Some men could have misinterpretted what was going on around them, for example the buzz of an outgoing round from another boat being mistaken for an incoming round - a very intelligent assumption I might add, one that encourages survival, we have phrases like the "fog of war" for a very good reason. Several guys could have been unsure at the time, one guys refers to the fire as incoming and the other guys have their recollection "filled out" and honestly believe the fire to be incoming. That is how the human brain works. It could easily have gone the other way, on a different boat one guy mistook enemy fire for friendly fire. In the absense of physical evidence we will never know what really happened, neither will the men who were there.

Bill Burkett talking about suing CBS News

[browncs]

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.

the reality of it all

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:CBS got caught pulling a FOX news!

[bussdriver]

Fox news is smart enough to not site physical evidence; they just get vague false references, if they give any at all.

Re:Kodos 2004

[bussdriver]

I don't want to build a laser to attack another planet.

Get Over It

[AmericanInKiev]

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

Re:Get Over It

[browncs]

I'm not going to throw out the First Amendment just because someone got hoodwinked.

The First Amendment does not allow someone to forge documents and pass them off as true.

How about if I forge documents showing you are stealing from your neighbors, you are cheating on your significant other, and you are giving alcohol to the neighborhood kids? Then I convince the local TV station to run a story on you as a neighborhood menace? Are you just going to let it go because you "don't want to throw out the First Amendment" ??

The Whitehouse had the chance to deny the Documents - they didn't. That is PROOF by many standards.

Yeah, like the Spanish Inquisition. "You didn't deny strongly enough that you are an infidel! You will now be tortured!"

Sorry for lapsing into sarcasm, but this is just so amazingly indicative of how far people will leave objective thinking when they are motivated by Bush-hating.

The White House is under court order to disclose all documents relating to Bush's National Guard service. Of course they released these documents as soon as they got them from CBS News. It wasn't their job to check them for accuracy, just to release them.

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.

"Is documented as covering up records" ?? I don't think so, unless you count partisan rants like "There's no records showing he did anything in certain months!" This is just another debating technique. "I know records exist which you haven't produced! Therefore, you're a liar and a cover-up artist!"

The truth is that George W. Bush put in thousands and thousands of hours of documented service in the National Guard, got documented permission to cut back on his Guard duty in the last few months of his six-year commitment, and finally got permission to leave just a couple of months early to attend Harvard Business School. He put in his hours and earned his honorable discharge. His unit could have been called to Vietnam, but wasn't.

All of this has been hashed and re-hashed in prior campaigns, both in Texas and nationally. None of the dirt has ever stuck. The fact that the Kerry campaign has decided to unearth this chestnut is indicative of their panic and disarray.

Re:Get Over It

[AmericanInKiev]

1. What if?
As a public Figure - you have to expect that stuff.

2. Spanish Inq.
I feel you're stretching. In News, before you print something which might be considered scandalous, it is customery to ask the target to respond to the accusation. A no comment is probably considered a pass, especially when the target is legally competant.

They weren't threatened - just consulted.

3. Bush is documented as getting "Favored Son" treatment.

3. The Whitehouse has been ordered to release docs - said it didn't have any - then said it did, the judge ordered the release again. - The WH has not been forthcoming about actual documents.

For the record - I'm biased, I feel that Bush lacks a command of the English language, and with that a command of the concepts for which long words represent the sysnthesis of long and pestering paradoxes and dichotemies which great pains have been made to strike into balance - a delicate balance with nuances Bush cannot possibly understand - given that he is so unfamiliar with the underlying dialectic that his mouth fails to form the foundational terms without sounding them out phonetically from the teleprompter - and as luck would have it - his cocaine addled brain often fails so basic a task as middle school conjugation.

So I'm a Reagan Independant hoping desperately for change - I prefer R. Nader.

AIK

Damaged?

[loid_void]

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.