Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Escaping the Kill Zone (New dirty work at the crossroads by the DNC, CBS et al)
The Belmont Club ^ | September 10, 2004 | TC Wretchard

Posted on 09/10/2004 7:18:05 PM PDT by quidnunc

Dan Rather's defense (courtesy of Glenn Reynolds) of his 60 Minutes accusations against the Bush National Guard record, coupled with this CBS Press Release (hat tip: Roger Simon) may indicate the direction in which story is developing. When caught in an ambush the first two rules are to exit the kill zone and lay down a curtain of return fire so you can make your getaway. Both the Rather interview and the CBS Press Release suggest that the network is trying to move the controversy onto broader grounds. They will refocus the question onto George Bush's National Guard record and will support it with evidence — interviews, collateral research etc — that their opponents have had little access to — and therefore be unable to criticize. In particular, Dan Rather listed out four questions which are probably going to be the strongpoints of the new redoubt: the most important are whether GWB disobeyed a direct order, whether he performed to standard, whether he made his physical.

By leaving the kill zone of fonts, kerning and proportional spacing and rallying on their new position CBS achieves two things. The near effective fire raining down on them will be transformed into far ineffective fire, simply because its Internet critics will need a whole 12 hours to start raising new questions about the additional CBS allegations. By covering their repositioning with intensified attacks on GWB they will with any luck, restart a stalled story and reclaim the offensive.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at belmontclub.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 60minutes; belmontclub; killian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
We probably are seeing the first shots of the next phase in the campaign to attack Dubya's character.

On Hannity and Combes tonight Robert Reich was taking the position that it was incumbent upon Bush to address these very serious charges which have been unearthed by the mainstream news organizations.

It appears to me that the fact that the memos could be shown to probably — though not conclusively — be proven to be forgeries was of peripheral importance.

What was really important was for CBS to level the charges in the first in order to get them on the table.

In other words any allegation, no matter how ridiculous it may be on its face, is to be considered credible if the person or organization making it is considered to be credible.

It's the genetic fallact turned inside out.

1 posted on 09/10/2004 7:18:05 PM PDT by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

CBS: Not Sinking!

Capt. Rather On Bridge!

'Rats Deserting Ship!

2 posted on 09/10/2004 7:21:05 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

There are no "serious charges". Not one. And that gets back to my original point when the 60 Minutes story first aired. There is nothing to their story. There are no charges. If there were, you can be damn sure we would have seen the evidence already. The White House is doing exactly the right thing by saying over and over again that "President Bush served honorably, and received an honorable discharge." End of story.


3 posted on 09/10/2004 7:25:06 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

I don't think so. Forgery is something people "get". It's simple, interesting, and morally unambiguous. I don't think Danny Boy will be able to redirect this one.


4 posted on 09/10/2004 7:25:35 PM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
We just force them back into the kill zone. The trumpet the serious allegation, we point with force to its basis in forgery,i.e.,

Them: These are serious allegations.

Us: Based on what? These forgeies?

We continue to play that one string fiddle until they fold. I'm for hammering the bastards on this one.

5 posted on 09/10/2004 7:27:21 PM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

My hunch is that there a lot of letters and emails sent to CBS and their advertisers already expressing extreme contempt for the story. Business heads at the network will work quickly to kill the whole subject on that basis. Boomerang is at home in their forehead. Don't do it again.


6 posted on 09/10/2004 7:28:20 PM PDT by Thebaddog (Woof if you love America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Both the Rather interview and the CBS Press Release suggest that the network is trying to move the controversy onto broader grounds.

A few indictments would cure this amoral strategy very durn quick.

7 posted on 09/10/2004 7:31:53 PM PDT by John Valentine ("The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Short form of the above: CBS is not going to answer the charges. They're going to change the subject by levelling new accusations.


8 posted on 09/10/2004 7:32:29 PM PDT by dr_who_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper

I'm for hammering them with Grand Jury subpoenas.


9 posted on 09/10/2004 7:32:51 PM PDT by John Valentine ("The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Rokke wrote: There are no "serious charges". Not one. And that gets back to my original point when the 60 Minutes story first aired. There is nothing to their story.

You're missing the whole point.

The new DNC story line is that the very fact that it was CBS which first started talking about this automatically means the charges are serious.

10 posted on 09/10/2004 7:33:29 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper

They can impress many millions of people in a moment. We can't. Belmont's analysis has a nasty ring of truth.


11 posted on 09/10/2004 7:36:22 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

This from the man who 'saw' the Zapruder film? Sorry.

It is also possible to pull a genetic fallacy back by retracing back to the red herring in the first place and questioning the fonts, etc.


12 posted on 09/10/2004 7:36:23 PM PDT by combat_boots (Dug in and not budging an inch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
This is interesting. When the Democrat memos concerning the stonewalling of judicial appointees were disclosed, the Democrats and the old media turned the battle to the supposed illegal messenger rather than the subject of the memos. Now, the Democrats want to turn to the allegations contained in the forgeries rather than address the illegal messenger (the forged documents) but some of the old media are hesitating and not cooperating with the shell game. President Bush just smiles and checks his winning hand to the losers and they raise into his winner. Great!
13 posted on 09/10/2004 7:38:46 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland

Very good point. Forgery is a much easier story line to follow.


14 posted on 09/10/2004 7:40:38 PM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Pres. Bush should not address false charges based on forgeries.

If pressed, he should simply say, "I don't address forgeries and fabrications."

"Reich: 'Pres. Bush did you refuse to report as ordered for your flight physical?'"

Ans: "I don't adress forgeries and fabrications."

Until CBS produces the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, there will ALWAYS be sufficient fact to prove forgery & fabrication to the satisfaction of fair minds. Anyone can do anything with photocopiers, scanners, photoshop, powerpoint, and Word.


15 posted on 09/10/2004 7:43:10 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Proudly Supporting BUSH/CHENEY 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

If these doc's are forgeries and fake why in the world would the President even address the issue??? there isnt anything to answer for .THEY ARE FORGERIES!!!


16 posted on 09/10/2004 7:43:45 PM PDT by suzyq5558 (Sayyyyyy....isn't disingenuous dissembler just a fancy way of saying your a LIAR???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

No. I understand the point. But the reality is, there isn't enough "there" there to make a story with any influence. The overwhelming attitude amongst the average Americans you talk to is "ENOUGH ALREADY". They just don't care about Kerry in Vietnam or Bush in the Guard. I do. You do. But for most of America, the horse is so dead there is nothing left to kick. In the meantime, the White House says nothing more than "President Bush served honorably and received an honorable discharge". Which he did. Now matter how many documents Rather creates on his IBM PC.


17 posted on 09/10/2004 7:44:18 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The one factor remaining outside CBS's control is the asymmetrical configuration of its opponents. Baldly put, any Internet source can afford to be discredited by CBS but not vice versa. One leaker and 60 Minutes is in the kill zone all over again. Interesting times.

Works for me.

18 posted on 09/10/2004 7:46:36 PM PDT by Howlin (What's the Font Spacing, Kenneth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

They can't kill the story now. It's out there! Now the question is who and why. The sharks aren't going to stop.


19 posted on 09/10/2004 7:47:38 PM PDT by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
President Bush lied to the American people when he sat in the Oval Office and told us, "I did my duty." It's time for him to come clean and answer questions about his National Guard service.

Doesn't that sound like Tom Harkin????

And now we have this from CBS.

--Did Lieutenant Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer?

--Was Lieutenant. Bush suspended for failure to perform up to standards?

--Did Lieutenant Bush ever take a physical he was required and ordered to take? If not, why not?

--And did Lieutenant Bush, in fact, complete his commitment to the Guard?

But wait, we already read that here:


20 posted on 09/10/2004 7:51:41 PM PDT by Howlin (What's the Font Spacing, Kenneth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson