Don't fear the FREEPER!
Posted on 09/12/2004 12:17:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
RUSH: If these documents are forgeries, if CBS has been duped, I don't care by who, they were willing -- I don't know if they're willing accomplices, but they wanted the story to be true. They're not victims here. They have been in the tank for Kerry, CBS has been the network, all those 60 Minutes shows, all those books in conjunction with their parent company, all of the lack of attention of the swift boat vets, CBS hasn't given one shred of notice to these people, or very little, and now this. It's going to be hard for them to come out and throw up their hands, "We've tried to do our job!" Now, you wanted this story to be true, CBS did. I want to take you back to CNN's NewsNight with the face of CNN, Aaron Brown. Jeff Greenfield, this was on Wednesday night. Here's what Greenfield said.
GREENFIELD: I mean that we seem to be in a position where more and more people refuse to believe something if it comes from a source that doesn't agree with them anyway.
RUSH: Stop the tape. What this is about is this story. The latest National Guard story and what you're hearing here, these documents, 60 Minutes II. This aired after 60 Minutes II that same night. And Greenfield is lamenting the fact that nobody is going to believe this -- or that some are going to believe it and some aren't gonna believe it and what does "oh woe is us" this mean?
GREENFIELD: The same people who thought the swift boaties are all politically motivated are probably going to think this story is the revealed truth, and vice-versa. The people who believe that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, some people on Fox News, are the only sources of "objective" information, if they don't jump on this story, and some of them I doubt will, they're gonna say this is all politics. And I think that's how we debate. I'm trying to figure out these days, is there any group that both sides would say, "Okay, that's a fair-minded observer, and if that source tells me something I'm inclined to believe it?"
RUSH: Jeff, here's the answer to the question, one thing we know now is we can't trust CBS as this fair-minded source. These documents are forged. We just answered your question. The answer to your question, actually your point is obliterated. Lamenting the passing of the old media. Where can people go to believe the information they receive is true and objective? That's what he's wondering there. What will it take to get these narrow ideologues who listen to me and Hannity and Fox to believe rock solid evidence like, say CBS and these National Guard documents, he's asking (Doing Greenfield impression), "What's it going to take? How are we going to get our power back?"
Well, it looks to me more and more like CBS is not the place to go, and neither are the newspapers that parrot it on their front pages what looks to be like CBS's false claims. And I mean the New York Times and the Washington Post, and perhaps your local paper went to town with this, they just couldn't wait. So we have been asking ourselves this question for years, Jeff, what's happened to you? Why can't we trust you? Why can't we -- not you personally -- why can't we trust the elite media in this country? This has been the focus, this has been one of the reasons that conservatism has triumphed is because of the disrespect and the lack of attention, the laughing, the impugning, the making fun of, the attempt to discredit all of us that has gone on all these years in the mainstream press. And to now lament the fact that nobody believed the 60 Minutes story or not enough people did, who's validated here? Who's vindicated here in not believing it? It was a fraud, apparently. The whole thing is a trumped-up, fraudulent story, and sources close to the deceased Colonel Killian are all saying forged documents. All the analysis, even Kerry document experts, I mean people supporting Kerry who are also document experts say these have to be forgeries, these couldn't have been prepared in the 1970s. They come off on a Microsoft Word processing program that did not exist even on IBM Selectric typewriters in the 1970s, which the Army didn't use anyway, they weren't into electric typewriters back then.
So what have we had here in recent years? We've had the CNN/TIME debacle with Peter Arnett, when they went over there and this trumpeted up story about nerve gas and agent orange that U.S. troops used, and I have no doubt that the impetus for that story was fed in part by John Kerry's testimony in 1971 about what a bunch of rotten war criminals American soldiers were and how criminal our actions in Vietnam were. Kerry set the stage in 1971 for every liberal in this country to begin hating the U.S. military and believing that's not standard operating procedure, kill civilians, torch villages, chop off ears, chop off arms, chop off legs, throw people in the water and drown them, that's the kind of thing Kerry said his buddies did in '71, and that's why they're fit to be tied today. So CNN and TIME goes over and does a story about that, narrated by Peter Arnett, claiming we used nerve gas during the Vietnam War. Then we had the New Republic Stephen Glass debacle, the Jayson Blair New York Times debacle, the Jack Kelly USA Today debacle, and perhaps coming to a theater near you, the CBS National Guard debacle. I have forgotten the Janet Cooke debacle at the Washington Post.
This goes on and on. And now guess what's coming up on Monday? Kitty Kelley at The Today Show. Is that going to survive? Is NBC going to rethink putting Kitty Kelley on for three days? Remember, Kitty Kelley, in an ancient book, claimed that Frank Sinatra got a Lewinsky from Nancy Reagan up there in the residence quarters of the White House while Reagan was in the Oval Office. Max Frankel of the New York Times, the editor of the times, ran with that story and had to retract it because it turned out not to be true. Newsweek has backed out of running any excerpts from Kitty Kelley's book because they don't trust her reporting, ditto the Washington Times. Now Kitty Kelley's publisher is threatening to sue for damages because it's going to cost them money if Newsweek and the Washington Post don't run ahead with this. What's NBC going to do in this face of this?
You know, the deeper point I suppose, if this is indeed a document hoax, the deeper point is this. It is yet more evidence, I think the most powerful evidence to date, of the length to which the Bush-haters will go in order to bring down President Bush. This has become emblematic of the kind of corrupt people that we're dealing with on the left and how skeptical everybody has to be about all these slanderous allegations that are being made against the president in the last days of the campaign. Keep in mind, if this turns out to be a forgery, if this turns out to be a bunch of forged documents and a hoax, what are the Democrats going to do then? They have destroyed any bit of credibility for whatever dirt they want to sling in the remaining days of the campaign. Because any dirt they sling is going to be measured against this story, forged documents. Nobody is going to believe anything Terry McAuliffe -- I don't know why anybody believes anything he says anyway, nobody is going to believe what Carville says, nobody is going to believe what Begala says, nobody ought to believe what Kerry says because not even Kerry believes what he says based on the fact he changes what he says every day, every minute, or whatever.
I mean, it is stunning here. And this is what you get when you are obsessed with rage and hatred, you lose rationality. How many of you have been in blind rages in your life? I don't care at who or at what and I don't care how long they lasted, ask yourself, revisit that time in your life, and ask, "Did you do anything smart?" You probably lost your temper, you probably lost your composure, you probably did things you regret, that's where our friends the liberal Democrats are today. I'll tell you where they are. Nothing is working. They've thrown the kitchen sink at Bush. They've thrown every bit of scandal they think they have at Bush and all they are is 9 to 12 points down in the polls as a result. And so I guess desperation set in, somebody somewhere comes up with these documents. The fact that they might have been forged or false or fraudulent, overlooked because they're so eager. They can't come out and tell us what they're for, they can't come out and be positive, they can't come out and be optimistic, why? Because they've set themselves up just the opposite, good news for America is bad news for them. If they all of a sudden start singing the praises of America they're going to be doing a flip-flop on their whole strategery since 2002. So all they can do is stay negative, all they can do is go negative, and when none of the negative works you've got to go even more negative.
And now they've gotten Nixonian. Look what they've become. They have become what they hated. They have become what they despised. They have become what they accuse us of being. I think we are on the cusp of a monumental moment for not just the left, but the media as well. As I have said over and over again, we are in a historical time. And because we are in a historical time, the impact is not so much felt on a day-to-day basis, but you take a look at how long in this country the left ran the show, including the media, and you look at where we are today with that monopoly busted up and stories like this continuing to happen. Their influence on the wane, their impact on the wane, their audience size on the wane, the alternative media, the new media, whatever you want to call it, on the ascension. This 50 or 75 years from now will be looked at by nonpartisan, noninvolved, people not even born yet historians, who will write about this is something seminal, as something monumental and momentous in the changing political makeup of this country. This is a time that's going to be looked back on, when a press revolution was completed, when the old media giants fell, when a monopoly was emphatically shattered, and when the new media solidified its right place as one of the great and good forces in American society which I firmly believe that we are, ladies and gentlemen.
The new media -- and I know, because I was there. I was present at the Creation with a capital C -- has been a boon for those who care about debate within the arena of ideas. The new media has been a boon for alternative points of view. The new media has been a boon for the truth, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, if you look at this, and I mentioned this mere moments ago, in this sterling broadcast hour. If you look at this, there was a three-point attack against Bush's Guard record in the last 48 hours. We had Ben Barnes and special treatment getting into the Guard. Then we had these memos, these apparently forged memos which essentially say that Bush was a slacker and Bush failing to comply with orders and then exerting pressure on Killian, who's now dead, to falsify the record. And then we had the Boston Globe. Bush -- who is in the tank for Kerry, I don't care what Nina Easton says when she calls us. They've got Kranish back on the case now, you know, trying to bail Kerry out of it here. There's a story in the Boston Globe today defending John Kerry's service in the Naval Reserve! The story makes it out like the Republicans are ripping into Kerry's Naval Reserve. It's absurd. Bush has done nothing but praise Kerry's service. You talk about a preemptive, this is a preemptive defensive strike. I don't know what the charge is. I didn't know until today that Kerry was even in the Naval Reserve, but he went to the Naval Reserve when he opted out of Vietnam after the three Purple Hearts. And so I think they're putting the story out there, get ready for any assault on his -- it's just mind-boggling.
So anyway, the third of the three-point attack was the Boston Globe. Bush didn't finish his Guard service even though, as Byron York pointed out -- we shared the details with you yesterday -- George W. Bush had more hours than necessary when all the years of his service, six of them, were added up. It's a bogus story, and the Globe had to run a defensive posture anyway. Why did they do the story now, why didn't they do it months ago or whenever? John Edwards yesterday demanded that Bush explain the memos, which we now know were forgeries. And Tom Harkin is out there making an absolute fool of himself. That's coming up later. Not to mention McAuliffe. You ought to see his statement of Wednesday when it was learned what these forged documents said, this is even better. So we we have Ben Barnes who was interviewed by Rather on Wednesday night. Major Kerry friend, major Kerry fund-raiser, and we know that in 1999 Ben Barnes said under oath that he had not helped Bush.
Then the Boston Globe decided to review again documents that he's had since February just in time to release its new analysis after the convention and Bush's bounce in the polls. Meanwhile, while all this is going on, old Kerry won't release all of his records, and eyewitnesses who question his service, all the vets who have gone on the record are all but ignored and even trashed by the liberal media. The silver lining, the silver lining to all of this, has anybody stopped to consider what the silver lining of all this is? The silver lining to all of this is that it doesn't provide a voter with a single reason to vote for John Kerry. They can do all of these forged document stories they want. The Boston Globe can run interference and try to save Kerry's bacon before he gets in the fat, they can do all these things, they can go out and get Ben Barnes to reverse his story again, but none of it -- calm down here -- none of it, ladies and gentlemen, provides one voter with one reason to vote for John Kerry. This is the greatest illustration of the total ineptitude of the Democratic Party today that I can give you.
They come up with scandal after scandal. This National Guard scandal was first tried by Ma Richards when Bush ran against her for governor of Texas. It has been a bummer and failure of an issue since the early nineties, ladies and gentlemen, and yet they still go back to it. It didn't work for Ma Richards, it didn't work for Gore. It hasn't worked for Kerry. And now they're so frustrated it hasn't worked they've made documents up, apparently, to try to make it work on the fraudulent basis and even that has backfired on them. Even though they've done all this, they haven't given any voter one reason to vote for John Kerry. And here's, as I say, NBC sitting there probably biting their fingernails asking themselves what they do with Kitty Kelley, who they've set aside three days for next week on the Today Show.
I'll tell you something else. As long as you people at CBS conducting this internal investigation, let me be a participant here from afar and give you my thoughts. I don't think Dan Rather should ever have been the reporter handling this story, this Barnett story. Barnett's been on the Travis County Democrat Party finance committee. Dan Rather's daughter Robin has been an activist with that county party. Rather himself in 2001 did a fund-raiser for the Travis County, Texas, Democrats. Rather had to know who Barnes is. He had to have known about Barnes' reputation. He knew Barnes was a top Kerry supporter. Rather had too many personal connections to this. It equaled conflict of interest, and this is why CBS failed to do the kind of due diligence that one would expect from a professional news organization. Dan Rather should have been nowhere near this story. How many news anchors go do fund-raisers for parties? And everybody is talking about Begala and Carville working for Kerry and working for CNN. Hell, that's old news. Dan Rather is doing fund-raisers for Texas Democrats at the request of his wife and then goes and gets that director of that county party as a guest this week on his show, 60 Minutes, and gets the guy to change his story, and then introduces potentially forged documents as well. What is there to investigate, CBS? What do you have to know? What do you not know?
You know, the same media that constantly demands that Bush admit mistakes or apologize isn't demanding the same of CBS, and they won't. In fact, CBS continues to stand by its story. Rather is out there on the streets of New York asking anybody who will listen to believe him that the story was true, despite the fact that everybody knows that this thing is bogus. So you look at what's happened to the liberal media in the last few months and years, Jayson Blair, the New York Times, lying about circulation at Newsday and all these other newspapers, CBS running with bogus documents. The list is expanding. The old media is losing credibility and audience by refusing to acknowledge that and clean up its act. They have all become what they hated, and it's precisely because they are consumed with seething rage and hatred that they have become what they hated.
Democrats don't believe what democrats say. Homosexual marriage advocates know kerry will approve homosexual marriage in any form they want no matter what he says on the trail or convention.
Republicans know Bush will say what he means and means what he says. (which is why Hassert did such a good deed keeping the AWB off Bush's desk.)
What Agore had in mind was more along the lines of Orwell's 1984 home TV set that watches you while you watch it. One in every home and classroom.
Yeah, but "fixing" that problem can come through legislation.
bump
Thanks for posting this. Rush is right of course.
I like Savage more and more as time goes on
Cool.
Was that the one with the optical scanner that worked out the portional spacing between characters just typed and the ones that were about to be typed?
;)
Savage seems the most passionate about reclaiming America. Hannity giggles and flirts with the women far too much. I don't think he realizes how insincere he acts when he does all that giggling. That Flipper freak should have been booted off a long time ago.
I am dead serious about the grave dangers we face and only Savage seems to reflect that serious concern.
BTTT..Rush
Ping Peggy Noonan and Michelle Malkin -
We need a buzzword to describe these antics - just like the left used "McCarthyism" - to shame LeftStream Media followers and destroy all remaining trust the general public has in these Media Weasels.
How can people still watch CNN when they ADMITTED they covered up Saddam's atrocities to keep their access?
And they have become spiteful of that which they once begged for -- true equality among the masses.
The Internet makes us all equal. The Internet makes all people who are interested in the news, in whatever capacity that may be, equal in their ability to discern the facts and report the truth.
These socialist-minded, 60's-era peaceniks have been preaching about the sins of American Imperialism for decades, insisting on true social equality for all. They have spent years dreaming of The Ideal Society. Well, thanks to Algore, in terms of news analysis and reporting, we're now there.
Both the CEO of a major corporation and FReepers can now sit down at their computers, log on to the Internet, and all are on the same playing field. Likewise, those "esteemed" members of the Fourth Estate are no more "worthy" or "intelligent" than we are. That spit-polished journalist can sit there in his expensive leather chair wearing his 3-piece Armani suit, while we FReep from a vinyl-covered footstool wearing 3-day-old crusty pajamas. It makes absolutely no difference anymore.
This must really chap their ass.
The elite media is crumbling because of the recent ratings for the Republican Convention. For a Cable News Network to beat one broadcast network in any time period is big news. For FNC to beat all three is truly incredible.
You know it does. They all know some animals are simply more equal than others.
As long as Rupert Murdoch controls Fox and the NY Post, both are in good standing with me.
Savage is a bitter old man who whines too much.
Don't know the selected print ball but I do know I used I.B.M.
Whoa.... Conservatives or Conservatism succeeds when allied with Truth, objective reality. The Liberals, modern day liberals insist Truth is what works for you, or for them. "Objectivity" is defined differently by most thinking people in both camps differently. There can be no discussion without first agreement on the definition of terms. There can be no agreement between those who believe 2+2 = 4 (everywhere in the Universe) and those who believe 2 + 2 = 4 except when it equals 5.
Now scientific, or absolute, certainty, is beyond human capacity. We might agree even insist absolute certainty must exists, even if we do not undertand it exhaustively but the weight of historic certainty - the evidence, for example, that Caesar existed and that Christ came out of that tomb, is largely within our grasp.
What I'm stumbling along here trying to say is that a Government appointed commission is incapable of determining "objectivity." Your suggestion borders on the recreation of Nixon's "Fairness Doctrine, the requirement that broadcast stations provide those who disagree with an opinion "reasonable opportunity to reply."
If that Doctrine had been renewed, Rush Limbaugh and what we know today as Conservative Tak Radio would not exist.
Neutrality is a myth. The Liberals believe they are Neutral, and it is a cherished ideal of "moderates" everyehere.
The way to defang the MSM is by continuing to take away their eyeballs. In time, the Big Three will be out of the news business altogether, acting only as a Pool for their affiliates. The New Media will grow with the increasing ease and talent of it's writers.
Clinton may be the last President they will pick for us, but their audience will die off with the retired audience that is already most of what remains of its "eyeballs."
No, but I can tell you that at the time they had just worked out the bugs so that the massive amount of crap the pentagon sent and all of the associated agencies could use a set format and have messages scanned, checked for security then sent by computer without having to put everything on I.B.M. punch cards or on tickertape. Also using the cmputer you could edit.
Room 5A910 at the time.
Don't fear the FREEPER!
Related to this forged document story, my greatest concern with the "MSM" (nothing mainstream about them, of course) has to do with the part of the disasterous Campaign Finance Reform bill that essentially gives the media control over the last 30 or 60 days of an election cycle. I believe the CFR pretty much forbids any opposition ads that could inform voters of certain aspects of a candidates record in the last month or so of an election, which leaves that job almost solely to the media. As we all know, the MSM is in fact the LM, and they will only put out negative information related to Republican cadidates during that period. Apparantly, if Documentgate is any indication, they will even make up information in order to smear a candidate.
I think this incident should provide ample proof in a court of law to get this part of CFR overturned, although the infringement on the 1st amendment should have been enough to do so (thank you, SC).
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.