Posted on 09/10/2004 5:36:36 PM PDT by Hank All-American
I watched Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard on O' Reilly, with Tony Snow sitting in. He had former CBS executive sit in. I thought Hayes was far too non-committal. Instead of stressing how many experts say the documents are forged, he kept repeating about "serious questions" being raised. The CBS exec was on the defensive very early on, but seemed to sense that he wasn't going to be challenged too much and started stressing 60 Minutes procedures and integrity, comparing them to the lack of any standards for bloggers. Hayes took exception, but kept talking about "serious questions having been raised." The fact is, enough document experts have pronounced them fake that you don't have to hedge like this, and it came across weak, in my opinion.
I would agree but I also thought having a former and still loyal 60 Minutes guy there was pretty silly. I mean what did you think he was gonna say? The guy kept yammering about proceedures...
He was the wrong guy to have on. He is never really effective.
Not to mention - Ok, I will, that we bloggers were "pajama wearers", basically talking all bloggers down. Talk about the Media Elite..
But did you hear the idiot Democrat woman say Bush did not fight the war FAIRLY? I laughed out loud at that one.
What, exactly, would you have wanted Hayes to do? He said that CBS, if it is so sure of its postion, should allow other document experts to come in and view the documents. That's about all you can ask for.
Yeah, they were both lame. The lib chick, too, was spouting off all the usual Dem talking points. The latest one is that Bush is reponsible for Iraq because he is CiC. YAWN.
I thought Hayes did well. The CBS guy, on the other hand, looked smug while sounding lame.
The best point he made was the line breaks. When typed on MS word, all the lines ended with the exact same word as the lines in the CBS memo. The odds of the person typing that memo hitting the carriage return on the exact same word on each line are mind boggeling.
The point was made: the CBS guy is a hack.
There are questions.
Nothing slid by Tony Snow.
He zinged the guy a couple of times
and I learned from the show that the
CBS producer of the 60 Minute segment
is agenda driven.
Think about Tony's closing remark:
something to the effect that "she's
been working on this story for 4 years
and had to make it fit."
I think we're past the point where we have to say "questions are being raised." I think we can now say, most expert believe they are likely forgeries, though better copies would allow for a more conclusive analysis.
Thanks for the post. I, too, have thought that there's too much weasel-wording going on about this. Most of the sissy talking heads, and even Hannity!, are still using phrases like, "possible forgeries", "may not be authentic," etc. The documents are forgeries, provable a hundred ways. So have the guts to say it.
I disagree.
Tony mentioned the fact that Killian's son told the CBS producer he knew several men who would testify that his dad didn't do these things, and wouldn't have done these things. The producer refused, saying they were pro-Bush people.
The ex-CBS guy said this was a good thing to do, because they would be giving biased information.
Tony countered that Rather had Barnes, who is a partisian fundraiser for Kerry. Mr. CBS said that CBS disclosed that. They didn't, but the obvious followup would have been, "If a disclosure would rectify biased testimony, then why couldn't the men who Killian's son recommended have been disclosed, like Barnes? Instead, the producer, who Mr. CBS spoke glowingly of, saying she was beyond reproach, wouldn't even interview the men.
I like Tony, but he's over his head in these situations. He doesn't think on his feet.
Not me, I blog in the Nude.
I'd never be too afraid of caution. He still comes off as reasonable while CBS exec was just a bit too confident of (Mapes', I guess) efficiency.
So let's see the originals then.
I disagree, the former CBS guy trumpeted Mapes as this shining example of a great producer and then Tony produced an example in Barnes and the guy had to slide away from it.
It brings more scrutiny on Mapes.
What I'm getting tired of hearing about, from some of these commentators, is how they know Dan Blather and consider him a nice guy/friend. Who cares?
I saw that too. And I asked myself, how could he know they were 1st generation copies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.