I'd Rather not.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:31 am

So here we have another case of partisan mainstream press going to any length to affect a presidential election. To wit...the parading out to the public of obviously forged documents that puts Bush in a bad light. By now I suspect most of you have heard or read the information surrounding all this so I need not go into that aspect. However what is incumbent is CBS News revealing who submitted the forged documents and producing the original documents themselves.
It is a sad day that some political partisan would stoop to such levels as forging documents to put the opposition party in a bad light. It is even more sad that a major news network would allow their program (60 minutes) to air this hack job. Any credibility that CBS may have once had is now history. Any bets on whether 60 Minutes will do a investigative report on itself?
It would only be fitting if sponsers pulled all their advert. and forced any of CBS's news organs off the air.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:40 am

They're covering up something else.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:06 am

what, you act as if the republicans have never done anything dirty or underhanded to affect an election.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:17 am

In a document just discovered by Dan Rather and a team of CBS elves the truth about the death of Jesus is about to rock the 2004 election!

***********************
From the desk of Pontius Pilate
Praefectus Iudaeae, Prefect of Judaea

29CE

Greetings G. Dubyuous Bush, my old friend.
I once again find a need of your special services.
It seems this Jesus character is stirring up trouble for me again and Herod is no help, he's such a waffler. The local priests are getting worried and they want me to execute Jesus but that would be troublesome for me since he may be innocent. I wonder if you couldn't implore Carlus Rovious to take care of it for me...have him make it look like the Jews were responsible.

***********************

Note this memo has been authenticated by experts and CBS has interviewed sources who were working with Pilate during the time. They have all agreed this document is authentic.

In reaction to the breaking story John Kerry said: "I actually sent an email from the jungles of VietNam to Pilate urging him to kill Jesus before I voted to spare him."

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:33 am

While I'm sure that Republicans are guilty of past crimes, this (alledgedly Dem) one ranks up there with Watergate in amateurism and stupidity.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:55 pm

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04 ... moke-X.gif

From what I've read, they were an amazingly bad forgery. Somebody typed them up in Word, using all the default fonts, sizes, spacing, margins, etc.

little green footballs has done some of the best analysis out there, though you have to wade through dozens of threads to find the relevant ones.

Pebkac is right on -- both parties have done stupid and illegal stuff in the past, but this one is amazing in terms of how poorly executed it was. And more amazing is the fact that CBS keeps standing by the documents, rather than saying "gee, these look forged. We made a mistake, sorry."

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:24 pm

"what, you act as if the republicans have never done anything dirty or underhanded to affect an election."

Ha Ha Haâ?¦

With this logicâ?¦you could never comment on anythingâ?¦.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:57 pm

ROFLMAO Will.

The problem with any of this crap is that it doesn't have anything to do with the issues at hand. The biggest things on the news recently and what a lot of people have been knocking around here have been about Kerry's lack of or perceived lack of patriotism 'after' his patriotic military service and whether or not the boy from Texas with a silver spoon in his mouth actually showed up for duty while he was out politicking (or drinking, whatever)....... Who the f*** cares? That ★■◆● was like 35 years ago and has no bearing on the screwed up healthcare, social security, national intelligence, and any other system you can care to think of.

Negative campaigning needs to just go away...Not mad, just away.

I agree that character is an issue, but I would venture to say that you could find a MAJOR character flaw in just about every politician.

Just food for thought.

(P.S. Kerry is a flip flopper....heh

)

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:07 pm

OUCH for CBS. Reminds me of AP and that beheading video

Latest news is that they ignored some experts who questioned the documents validity before it was published.

Funny thing is that its helping Kerry anyway. Bush's National Guard service has taken over the airways and now you hear Hannity & co. on the defense again.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:40 am

Bird, this memo-gate issue is really helping Kerry as he still does not have to explain who he is or how he will handle the important issues at hand.

BTW, after the reception Bush got in front of the National Guard I'd think the Dems would let the NG issue die.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:15 am

Birdseye wrote:Funny thing is that its helping Kerry anyway. Bush's National Guard service has taken over the airways and now you hear Hannity & co. on the defense again.

But he's still dropping in the polls and keeping the Kerry campain pointing at the 'shiney object' will come back to haunt them because it keeps the swiftboat guys and the other anti-Kerry veteran groups on the stage too.
Then watch for the final shoe to drop:

Kerry got an early ride back to the states with his quick harvest of purple hearts *BUT* he was supposed to be in the Ready Reserves for aproximately 2 more years, basically the very same deal Bush had with the National Guard!

Maybe the real reason he won't sign the form to release his military records isn't just the medals...

During that time he was supposed to attend 48 drills per year and up to 17 days active duty. Where are the performance records for Kerry's service in the Ready Reserves? Has any one interviewed his commanding officers to ask them for proof Kerry showed up? Why did Kerry not recieve an honerable discharge until March 2001...30 years after he should have been released?

It's been suggested he didn't recieve an honerable discharge because he was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and in violation of the code. As a commissioned officer he was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war.

According to a bunch of Navy SEALS who are now pissed off at him, here is why they think he didn't originally get an Honerable discharge:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath . to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:25 am

As far as it helping Kerry, doubtful, although it has temporarily knocked the Swiftvets off the frontpage. However, if the source of the memos gets connected to the DNC or Kerry campaign, it will most assuredly hurt Kerry and possibly put the last nail in his campaign's coffin. But, of course, we all know it was a Karl Rove setup.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:40 am

Isn't it sad that the strongest nation in the world has to select between two privledged, and probably incompetent, baffoons for commander-in-cheif?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:43 am

Aha! Hostile sees the coverup.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:24 am

Well, I think it helps in terms of muddying the war waters. SBV was hurting Kerry bad. This national guard thing should blow over soon and I think the public is getting sick of old war stories.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:39 pm

It would be sad if Kerry gets elected and we have a president who has his picture in the Hero's of North Vietnam Museum.

What Will brings up could lead to a very interesting scenario. What happens if Kerry gets elected and the swift boat vets decide to challenge Kerry's eligibility under the very rules Will posted. Could be very interesting.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:18 pm

If the docs are fake, and it turns out to be an evil Dem dirty trick, I would still vote for Kerry. Why? Because I think Bush is that bad. Heh, talk about the lesser of two evils.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:50 pm

IMHO, we need to shut down our current media network--entirely. TV, newspapers, radio, all of it. After that, we can restructure the media so it isn't so biased and we might actually (gasp) get something IMPARTIAL. Perhaps we should just add a media that'll be 3rd-party oriented. So, who's up for it?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:55 pm

Impartiality is not possible. Rather than hide journalistic biases, I'd prefer that while someone reports, their party affiliation is displayed next to their name.

That way if you saw Fox, you'd see Republican, Republican, etc. and if you Democratic newspapers you'd see "written by democrat Joe Smith" or whatever.

It would help the viewer decide a lot more.
Of course, they could always all just enter independant. So I'd prefer to also have their voting record displayed on company websites (required).

You can't remove bias, you can only understand it and attempt to lessen it.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:59 pm

Birdseye wrote:You can't remove bias, you can only understand it and attempt to lessen it.

Word.

That's one reason I read a lot of blogs -- I can read their links, and I can be pretty sure I know where they stand. The biases are usually stated up front.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:40 am

Seems like Mr. Rather may finally realise the errors of his ways. Just wonder who CBS will hang out to dry on this one.

"CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Sep15.html

"Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network."

"There is only one Kinko's in Abilene, and it is 21 miles from the Baird, Tex., home of retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Sep15.html

Note these stories are from the Post and not some right wing cafe'

Herculosis · Post by **Herculosis** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:45 am

Birdseye wrote:...I'd prefer that while someone reports, their party affiliation is displayed next to their name.

That way if you saw Fox, you'd see Republican, Republican, etc. and if you Democratic newspapers you'd see "written by democrat Joe Smith" or whatever.

I actually think that's a really good idea, but I think you might be surprised to see the percentage breakdowns. Here's my guess, based on my own observances (R%/D%):

Fox: 70 / 30
CNN: 5 / 95
MSNBC: 20 / 80
CBS: 2 / 98
ABC: 10 / 90
NBC: 15 / 85

Radio:
NPR Political Talk: 2 / 98
Non-NPR Political Talk: 85 / 15

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:23 am

New english language term as coined by CBS:

"Accurate Forgery"

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:40 am

woodchip wrote:New english language term as coined by CBS:

"Accurate Forgery"

Putting the "moron" in "oxymoron"

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:04 pm

LOL on the fox numbers...who is a democrat besides colmes! Damn I can't believe you put 70/30 for fox that is hilarious

i forget about the "liberal media conspiracy" the conservatives whine about but still haven't done anything to prove. Go back to your MRC hole ;p

Herculosis · Post by **Herculosis** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:25 pm

Birdseye wrote:LOL on the fox numbers...who is a democrat besides colmes! Damn I can't believe you put 70/30 for fox that is hilarious

i forget about the "liberal media conspiracy" the conservatives whine about but still haven't done anything to prove. Go back to your MRC hole ;p

Ok, here's all of the prime time regular players:

Brit Hume
Greta Van Susteren
Shepard Smith
Sean Hannity
Alan Colmes
Bill O'Reilly

Hume's clearly a Republican, but a very reasoned one. Not like the "in-your-face" Hannity. O'Reilly is actually pretty centered, and claims to be independent. I see mostly conservative there, though, so we'll count him as Republican. Smith's an unknown, but since I haven't heard snide lefty comments from him, we'll call him a republican. Colmes and Van Susteren are both Dems. So, at worst case, we have 4R to 2D. Moreover, guests are generally very well split between both sides, unlike what you'd typically see on other networks. Need I do the math for you?

Btw, wtf is MRC???

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:25 pm

O'reilly is a registered republican. He claimed independant for years, but then when people actually saw his voter registration, it said republican. He claimed there was some sort of "error." Lol.

MRC is the Media Research Center, a group with board members such as rush limbaugh and elliot abrams (pardoned by bush Sr. for iran contra) that does the research for the conservative talking heads to support the unsupported (but still possible) case for conservative media.

There are many more commentators than just the six you mentioned--Geraldo, Linda Vester, and many more I can't remember the name of. I would also argue that there is an extreme editorial bias from the top at fox. The thing about Colmes is that he is set up like a fall guy on fox. He's almost like half a democrat because frequently when he starts talking Hannity interrupts with the "real deal."

You need to watch out-foxed. Remember it is biased, like anything else. Like F911 if you go in with open ears and eyes, you can see some interesting perspectives. Pick apart what is good, what is bad.

Maybe I shouldn't have focused just on their main talking heads...they bring on far more republican guests.

I guess what was annoying was that you made it seem like Fox news was less biased than CBS by your numbers. Are you sure you can back the CNN ratio of 19-1 you quoted, and the CBS ratio of 49-1?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:55 pm

To get back on topic:

I find it interesting that Dan Rather has started saying, essentially, that if the documents turn out to be forged he wants to break the story.

News Flash: the story broke like a week ago. Now all you can do is fall in line and say "it appears I was duped" before you get hung out to dry.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:09 pm

It's amazing to me that Rather can get away with this.
He said of President Bush, regarding questions he posed of Bush's service in the national Guard, that "as long as the questions go unanswered the story is true".

He said of the forged documents (after backing off from the assertion they were real) that "although the documents may be fake their content is real".

So what we have is hearsay testimony from one lady who claims to believe Bush was "selected not elected to the presidency"...that "he is unfit to be president" and she testifies that the documents are "most certainly fake....but she saw similar documents that expressed similar thoughts".

So someone has obviously fabricated and forged documents to back up a witness who is relaying the thoughts of a dead man who can't defend himself and Dan Rather and 60 minutes refused to include his wife, son and all the many contemporaneous witnesses who say this lady is not telling the truth.

This is the criteria for making a news story that will affect an election?!?!

They call that house of cards a story and yet they refuse to mention the many verified parts of the swift boat guys claims without framing it in the context of doubts and rebutal from Kerry's camp.

Bush has signed the form 180, Kerry has not.
Kerry also didn't show for mandatory training...he was too busy meeting with the enemy in a summit in france...has anyone at CBS questioned his commanders?
Has Dan Rather demanded Kerry answer *one* question about his service?

If you don't see a double standard applied here I swear you must be beyond ignorant!

Dan Rather is doing more damage to our democracy than Nixon did. No hyperbole, flat out true statement.

Given a choice between catching bin Laddin or seeing Rather fired and disgraced by the public I pick a free bin Laddin without hesitation!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:28 am

Way back when I posted how the McCain/Feingold bill was going to turn the major news organs into defacto political hacks. M/F is in effect and CBS jumps into the breech. So I hope any here who thought M/F was a good idea...are now a little more cognisant of the bills drawbacks.

Eveidently by what Fox News is saying, CBS is losing neilson ratings in some of its major markets. When the advertisers start pulling out, maybe CBS will wake up and get rid of Rather. Don't forget, back in 88 Rather pulled a similar stunt with a documentary about a bogus ex-vietnam vet and the atrocities he committed:

"The critically acclaimed "Wall Within" was a colossal fraud. The man identified as "Steve" turned out to be one Steve Southards, and through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Burkett obtained his military records. The truth, he found, was that "Southards was not a SEAL, nor had he taken any SEAL training.... In reality, Southards was an â??internal communications repairman,â?? assigned to rear area bases and had no combat decorations. His only special training was a â??motion picture operation course (16mm),â?? at Subic Bay in the Philippines." Whatâ??s more, he had spent time in the brig for going AWOL six times. According to Burkettâ??s research, "Little that Southards had told Rather was true except that he had been in the Navy, and that his first name was Steve."

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1213341/posts

Also Rather caught flak on how he handled a interview with Bush Sr.:

In the interview, Dan Rather kept trying to implicate George Bush, trying to get Bush to say that he was involved in Iran-contra. Over and over again, Rather would ask Bush a question about his knowledge of the imbroglio. When Bush wouldn't concede that he had prior knowledge, Rather would interrupt him and ask him another question about whether he knew. This went on until Rather interrupted Bush for the last time and ended the interview. The interview caused a stir. A number of CBS affiliates called the Bush campaign to apologize for the anchor's behavior. Sam Donaldson, known for his own confrontational interviews, said, "Rather went too far." Mike Wallace, a fellow CBS reporter, said, "The style was wrong. Dan lost his cool."

http://www.ratherbiased.com/bush_attack.htm

I think its time for Rather to retire