Did you hit Effin with this ball with your name on it?!
(Is he growing donkey teeth just in time for the election?)
Posted on 09/17/2004 11:42:41 PM PDT by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
In a new blow to CBS anchor Dan Rather's credibility, the man who has supposedly exerted pressure to "sugarcoat" President Bush's National Guard record has spoken out — and says the story is dead wrong. "I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," retired Brigadier Gen. Walter Staudt, who headed Bush's unit in the Texas Air National Guard, told ABC News.
The dubious documents that Rather used in a "60 Minutes" report last week that accused Bush of shirking his National Guard duty include a supposed Aug. 18, 1973, memo that claims Staudt was "pushing to sugar coat" Bush's ratings.
More than a dozen document experts — including two hired by CBS — say the memos are computer-generated fakes. Skeptics also note anomalies like the use of Army rather than Air Force terms and the fact that Staudt had retired 18 months before.
~snip~
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
You wrote:
"The fact that he has been accused by CBS now means CBS can treat him like a criminal? I don't think so."
In the words of one satire--
"If you're so innocent how come you won't admit your guilt?"
CBS is acting like the DNC. Every witness to their lies gets smeared. I can't think of a worse way to handle a scandal than CBS has for the past 9 days.
It's got to the point where CBS News apparently sees itself as some kind of modern day Leftist Inquisition, not a news organization.
Oh that would be unfair and partisan.
Much better to issue new credentials to all genuine media organistations after the election
If the documents were, or are shown to be, real would you have approved CBS' actions? I doubt it.
Although she thinks the documents are forged Ms. Carr says they are substantially correct. Is she also aiding this nefarious project?
You do know there's an election on and that it is the legitimate function of the opposition to "harm" the sitting President in order to get him removed from office? That this has happened quite a few times before in American history - for example in 1968, 1944, 1864?
ROTFLOL... That's actually a pretty good analogy for Free Republic, come to think of it.
So you acknowledge the obvious -- that CBS is a an arm of "the opposition" party.
No. What I do acknowledge is that, in politics, only the disinterested are unbiased. What does this have to do with my post?
It is the legitimate function of the Press to report scandals, corruption, impropriety, etc. - particularly when it relates to candidates for public office. Naturally, a particular news organization will reflect its bias in such efforts. Our system is basically adversarial to the core; it relies upon freedoms of speech and the Press as the best way to approach truth and expose bias.
That statement is tautological, and therefore meaningless. Perhaps you meant that only the uninterested are unbiased?
What does this have to do with my post?
The post you were replying to spoke of the *press* attempting to harm the President. You responded that such is a legitimate function of the opposition. I agree, but the opposition should not be going around pretending to be an objective news outlet. Even the opposition should not use forged evidence, but it's most certainly the press's responsibility to critically examine such claims, rather than just passing them along as "true."
Nice try, lib. However, the burden was on CBS and Dan Rather to prove the documents were real BEFORE they aired them. The burden still rests with them. Perhaps they all should go back to journalism school and learn when to run with a story and when not to.
Although she thinks the documents are forged Ms. Carr says they are substantially correct. Is she also aiding this nefarious project?
Well, Gen. Staudt disagrees with the secretary. And the widow and son of the alleged memo writer also have emerged to contradict CBS' story. Plus, the Kerry fund-raiser who was interviewed by Rather has a daughter who says her daddy is a liar. Looks like the secretary is outnumbered.
You do know there's an election on and that it is the legitimate function of the opposition to "harm" the sitting President in order to get him removed from office?
Oh, so you admit Dan Rather is the "opposition." Gee, I wish Rather was at least consistent and had considered himself the "opposition" when Bill Clinton was president. Then maybe CBS would've exposed Clinton for the rapist he was. Instead, I don't think Rather ever mentioned Juanita Broaddrick and her allegations to his audience. Of course, that would've been the FAIR AND BALANCED thing to do - a concept that is quite foreign to the Democrat hacks at last-place CBS News.
Add Genelius to the 'gotta go' list.
...which is why Fox News Channel is keeping its viewers up to date on all the scandals, corruption and impropriety taking place at CBS.
Did you hit Effin with this ball with your name on it?!
(Is he growing donkey teeth just in time for the election?)
pretending to be an objective news outlet
There's no such thing...but the pretense is accepted as part of our culture. Or, more generously, some do a better job than others in approaching the ideal. But it's a constant fight.
Even the opposition should not use forged evidence...it's most certainly the press's responsibility to critically examine such claims
The story is not complete but, as of now, I believe CBS exercised due diligence. It was inadequate - probably because they were blind-sided by their bias, their arrogance, or their age.
You miss the point of my original post. It is quite legitimate to try to "harm" the President during an election year, war or no war. I don't think the poster understood that...or, even worse, wants to understand it.
Let's not forget that Mizzzz Knox told the Houston Chronicle a week ago that she, the pool secretary for the whole office who typed memos for everyone in there, had no recollection of Bush's service in the National Guard, but that she knew there was an atmosphere of preferential treatment for rich kids, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that Bush got preferential treatment.
Under Dan Rather's gentle coaching and leading questions a few days later, however, she remembered all sorts of specific details about Bush talking to her, Bush swaggering around in his arrogance and not following rules, other pilots hating him, being LT Col Killian's personal secretary and sole confidant, remembering Killian's obvious disdain and fury about Bush's behavior and disregard for rules, recalling General Staudt's bullying tactics -- and her memories were crystal clear. Yeah, right.
I think Marion Carr Knox is what CBS would refer to as an "unimpeachable witness," but the rest of us would call a confused and easily swayed little old lady (the polite ones, that is...I've seen worse).
...And CBS still claim the content is accurate...
But the evidence does not matter, it's the severity of the accusation that demands action /sarcasm
The same line that was used during the lynching of Justice Thomas.
We're fighting a high-stakes War on Terror, and you think it's quite legitimate to try to harm a sitting President with FAKE documents? Oh, I understand all too well what you're saying.
To TRY, to exercise due diligence. Like everyone else they face competitive pressures with limited resources. You haven't answered the question.
Well, Gen. Staudt disagrees with the secretary.
So? In this situation I believe the secretary.
Plus, the Kerry fund-raiser who was interviewed by Rather has a daughter who says her daddy is a liar.
Partisan and biased to the core, aren't you? The man wears other hats. Why chose that one? The last I heard no one had verified that it was his daughter who'd called the talk show. Has that changed...or do you use one standard when looking at evidence which is unfavorable to your candidate and another when looking at favorable?
Oh, so you admit Dan Rather is the "opposition."
Still avoiding the question. Bad sign. Baaad.
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.