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 ...
Worse and worse. Answer the question.
I think she also talked about how Bush seemed like a very nice young man and she thought he must have really good parents to be such a respectful individual. She does seem to flip-flop as often as Ketchup Boy.
Which question??????????
Are you asking if I'd have a different opinion of CBS if the documents were actually real? Well, yes I would. DUH!
Of course, I'd also have a different opinion of Dan Rather if he was sane.
What's all the hullabaloo over the "damage" to Ra™er's credibility? It is news to me that he ever had any credibility to begin with. What's next, an attack on his journalistic objectivity? HA!
"Debate"? There is some "debate" about this matter? I haven't seen it. I've seen only clear evidence of fraud and temporizing by the fraudulent.
The question(s) I asked in my first post.
Do you think it's legitimate for the opposition to try to "harm a sitting President in time of war" in the way that such things are usually done in politics (keep in mind that George the First - Washington - complained bitterly about partisan politics at the founding of the Republic)? Do you think it's legitimate for the Press to try and do the same thing under the same conditions?
Ben Barnes is a heck of a lot more partisan than me. He raises money for John Kerry. I don't raise money for George W. Bush. I've never given Bush a cent. In fact, I voted against Bush's father in '92, voted against Bush in the 2000 primary and can't stand Bush on all sorts of issues (education, illegal immigration, domestic spending, etc.)
Just because I'm outraged by CBS' conduct doesn't make me partisan.
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?
Has Mr. Barnes disputed it was his daughter? I just Googled "Ben Barnes" daughter on their news site, and I quickly found numerous mentions of the daughter calling him a liar. I didn't see any files that indicated Mr. Barnes is disputing her identity. I did hear one interview she did on Fox News in which she mentioned her dad called her after the first interview and wasn't happy with her. I doubt Fox News Channel would've put her on without first checking who she was (unless, of course, the people at Fox have adopted the CBS code of journalistic ethics).
"Sandy Genelius"
I thought that was an STD.
And breaking new stories on the "Oil-For-Food" scam the MSM hasn't touched.
...the most disturbing part about the whole issue is the alternate universe part...sorta like militant Muslims!!
If you have a story that checks out, fine! Go with it. Run with it. But don't go out and hire two document experts and ignore their warnings about airing fake docs. Don't put blinders on. Tell the whole story. Freedom of the press is great. But with freedom comes responsibility. And the last time I checked, forgery is a crime.
Also, CBS should have the decency to submit to a full internal and external investigation when their story starts springing serious leaks.
And if a source gave you FORGED documents, your source is now THE STORY and should be revealed.
There's a non-sequitur here. A more likely conclusion is that you're cheap, lazy, and unreasonable. :)
I did hear one interview she did on Fox News in which she mentioned her dad called her after the first interview and wasn't happy with her
That's fair. The last time I looked noone had bothered to actually track down the daughter. So now there are more complications - a dispute between father and daughter. Didn't that happen with the Reagans? Don't most families have "issues"?
unless, of course, the people at Fox have adopted the CBS code of journalistic ethics
For me this is a childish and partisan slant, an overreaction. CBS got it wrong this time (most probably). So what? That doesn't mean they get everything wrong. They're partisan. How many times do you want to prove it? Everyone has blind spots and biases and the truth is hard to come by.
Good gad, the arrogance displayed by CBS is breathtaking.
BTW, CBS. I do believe Gen. Staudt. When it comes to credibility, he has more than your network does.
I think you underestimate the difficulties. Did you read Newcomer on the fakes. He's a real first-rate expert. But he missed things, too. Even an expert can't be absolutely sure. And then there's the other side of it - competive pressures and the need to act, to make a decision. Don't forget this Administration took us to war DESPITE many misgivings expressed by many experts.
Forcing news organizations to give up their sources is a bad idea. Their business is exposing illegal and unwise activities by the powerful. They depend upon anonymous sources. Depriving them of this weapon is very much a two-edged sword. Something like trying to limit free speech.
Viacom may need to hire a replacement for Dan Rather soon. Judging from your kneejerk liberal insults, you have a good shot at taking over the anchor chair.
Just like Dan, you've got issues, boy. So long, and have a nice day in LiberalLand.
And then the ultimate slap to See B S...
"I love the guy," Staudt said of Bush. "I'm so tired of this negative crap about him that I'd like to volunteer to build a barn and take you press guys out behind it and kick your asses."
Hahahahaha................................
"probably thought she was a young hottie chick..."
Now I have Diet Coke all over my keyboard and coming out of my nose. what visual! Thanks bunches - that's what I didn't need to read first thing in the morning....
Mary Mapes told John Carlson that they believed the old lady Marian Carr Knox typed those memos!1 Even though Knox said she didn't!! Who's lying?
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.