Posted on 09/17/2004 11:42:41 PM PDT by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
"Give me liberty or give me death"
"Give me liberty or give me your death"
Just a single word makes all the difference in the world.
On this specific question, I think CBS is being judged too harshly and that those doing so are asking too much of the media..Yea like ..telling the truth ..That is a bit much to ask huh ....
The story here is that you can't follow a line of reasoning.
Oh really ...Ill keep reading in that case ...Love to see where your logical mind takes this.
Then you shouldn't be using her as a witness for your point of view. Because each time she's told the story, she embellishes it a bit more. And Dan Rather, who characterizes every witness against his view as a right-winger, never bothered to mention in the interview that the woman is not only a Democrat, but she said that Bush was selected, not elected and is unfit for office. Very hypocritical.
I haven't...but an old, old woman should be treated differently than a young person.
How so? Just because she's an old, old woman doesn't make her a better witness. It's extraordinarily suspicious that she has changed her story at least four times over the course of a few days. And Dan Rather didn't note any of the changes in her story.
CBS is not unbiased. No one is, except for those who have no interest in or knowledge of politics. That's as far as I can go at present. Perhaps new evidence will show that that CBS coordinated its efforts with the DNC. I doubt it.
Even fellow journalists say that it is ethical and proper to reveal a confidential source if that source provides them with fake information. Yet CBS won't. Why is that? And it's not a coincidence that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC had their Operation Fortunate Son line of attack ready to go right after CBS's report. They even used CBS in their commercial. And CBS is on record of interviewing partisan Bush-haters for their story, like Bill Burkett, Jim Moore, and Robert Strong, but either not interviewing pro-Bush sources, or briefly talking to them, but not putting them on the air. Their actions are indistinguishable from how the DNC would have done the report.
July 4, 1999
excerpt:
Although Mr. Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training, and extra shifts after training, flying single-seat F-102 fighter jets.
~snip~
excerpt:
Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
~snip~
If we only talked about what we were certain of, it would be a very quiet world. A friend of 40 years who I respect saw her interview and was impressed.
How so?
Really old people are much slower, easily confused, often have hearing problems, etc., etc. It takes some skill and understanding to properly guage the value of their replies.
Even fellow journalists say that it is ethical and proper to reveal a confidential source if that source provides them with fake information.
I hope that's true. I'd very much like to see where this story leads.
And it's not a coincidence that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC had their Operation Fortunate Son line of attack ready to go right after CBS's report
I should hope not. They've had that story in the wings since the founding of the party. Actually, its been in the arsenal of every party since the beginning of time.
CBS is on record of interviewing partisan Bush-haters for their story, like Bill Burkett, Jim Moore, and Robert Strong, but either not interviewing pro-Bush sources, or briefly talking to them, but not putting them on the air
CBS is partisan - and that's going to influence everything they do.
Their actions are indistinguishable from how the DNC would have done the report
This reminds me of another dispute.
A man contributes substantially to a party which behaves pretty much as he'd hoped. Did the man buy favors or contribute to the like-minded?
Bump.
Yes. And even Byron York, who is a very good reporter, perhaps out of misguided generosity of spirit, contends CBS really tried to authenticate the documents.
They did not. They consulted some "experts" so they could SAY they authenticated them. That is what Dan Rather said on the first Sixty Minutes unveiling these things--that they at CBS had authenticated them.
They never dreamed any uncovering of the fakes would get this far with this much scrutiny. And even then, the people they had spoken with didn't step forward immediately but only after days of the story going on and on.
So you rely on second-hand information to make your opinion of this woman, when a two-minute search of the freeper board or google about Mrs. Knox would show you how many stories this woman has had about the issue since the story broke? Sheesh.
Really old people are much slower, easily confused, often have hearing problems, etc., etc. It takes some skill and understanding to properly guage the value of their replies.
Like you've been told repeatedly on this board, this woman's story keeps on changing the more she talks. That's not a reliable witness, at any age.
I won't have a strong opinion about Mrs. Knox until I review all the evidence relating to her myself (I doubt I ever will). All witness testimony can and will be distorted by partisans and lawyers. That's especially easy to do to old people
CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius brushed off Staudt's statements: "In a debate this heated, one can hardly expect Gen. Staudt to endorse the point of view that he exerted undue influence."
So you calling him a liar? Those are fighting words. Just call her out for a duel General, Ala Zell Miller.
It truly is amazing how liberals are trying to reverse the burdens of proof all the time.
For example, liberals think Dan Rather doesn't need to prove the documents are real, even though he aired them on national TV. Instead, liberals believe it's up to conservatives to prove they are absolutely false.
And even though President Bush received an honorable discharge, liberals like Dan Rather believe, decades later, that Bush should have to prove that he deserved one because we now have FORGED documents that make Bush look bad.
No, he wasn't. And that wouldn't be any excuse to disregard his testimony, anyway.
The secretary is simply a witness who has nothing to gain one way or another.
I have a better presumption than yours. She was coached by CBS News , who was trying to salvage its corporate reputation, to alter her earlier testimony that she had no specific recollection of any of her CBS meanderings.
The 86 year old secretary who seems sharp, every time.
And how many takes and how much editing did that take? I'd be equally justified in stating that you seem like a total fool, based on your pathetic apologias for CBS News' absolutely indefensible handling of these illegally forged documents. That sound good to you too?
Liberal Larry has even less concern for the truth here than CBS News does. He obviously fully endorses the concept of the 'Big Lie' & would do Joseph Goebbels proud.
I think you're probably wrong here since CBS News would probably want as little attention as possible paid to its complicity in disseminating these forgeries.
Your equanimity in the face of CBS's total failure to not only produce corroborating sources, but to lose virtually all the uncorroborated sources it once claimed, standing revealed as having engaged in multiple deceptive practices to put together an anti-GWB 'story' with no inrinsic merit totally discredits your other attempts to put a gloss on this CBS/Rather turd.
The term 'useful idiot' comes to mind when I read your posts on Memogate.
No, it doesn't. We have only the word of those who have already perjured themselves by their complicity in creating and disseminating these forgeries to back your attitude up.
Btw, how much 'preferential treatment' could GWB have received, anyway? How about the hundreds of thousands of others who joined the National Guard during the Vietnam years? Have they all also somehow have compromised themselves, or are you Lefties simply terrible fools and hypocrites?
I'd say John Edwards is the recipient of far more preferential treatment wrt military service than GWB could ever could be accused of and I'm sure you'd support Edwards to the hilt, regardless. Where's your consistency and credibility, Liberalarry? I don't see it anywhere.
My thoughts, as well. Makes you wonder what must be behind such a willingness to endure what appears to be an irreparable public relations disaster. Perhaps the days to come will uncover the truth here. I am starting to think that the real story behind the memos is so explosive that the brouhaha over the forgery will pale by comparison.
Too many eyeballs on this one. It will come out. And however it does, a couple of things are certain. One, Dan Rather is finished at CBS. Two, the new cops on the beat--the bloggers--will henceforth act as a powerful break on false or poorly researched "journalism."
I predict that this episode--Rathergate--will be viewed by historians as a watershed moment when reporting was forced to become more honest. A great thing.
CBS certainly suspected and there's strong reason to believe that they knew the documents were forged before they ever went on air presenting them as authentic. No way can that be 'due diligence' except in a Kafkaesque or maybe Leftist world.
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.