Skip to comments.
Mark Steyn: CBS defense of Rather hints at bigger story (FR and Buckhead mentioned)
Chicago Sun-Times ^
| September 19, 2004
| BY MARK STEYN
Posted on 09/18/2004 7:05:14 AM PDT by badfreeper
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161 next last
To: badfreeper
CBS is bluffing. They are trying to blunt the criticism and legitimize the story by saying there are other, reliable, sources for the same information. I believe the secretary was probably the best they had and since she can't keep her story straight, or find a reporter she hasn't talked to, they have nothing.
If there were people in a legitimate position to hurt Bush, they'd have been heard from by now. He has been President almost 4 years, and was in an election for over a year before that. I do not believe that anyone with crucial information would sit on it that long if they really intended to use it.
21
posted on
09/18/2004 7:27:57 AM PDT
by
sharktrager
(Nobody deserves our hostility when they are in a time of need.)
To: RonDog
Sorry about the double post. I'm too used to people putting "Steyn" in the article title and I did my FR search based on that.
22
posted on
09/18/2004 7:29:54 AM PDT
by
badfreeper
(Dan WHO?)
To: Semi Civil Servant
Don't forget that Ben Barnes is an official of the Kerry/Edwards campaign in TX. This is the most damning allegation about him because it proves that he has motive to lie about Bush.
23
posted on
09/18/2004 7:31:41 AM PDT
by
RedWing9
(No tag here... Just want to stay vague...)
To: badfreeper
I think they think they have something. I noticed Susan Ostrich on Fox yesterday. She was quite subdued and almost sounded pro-Bush. I think sumthin's up.
24
posted on
09/18/2004 7:34:46 AM PDT
by
tiki
(Win one against the Flipper)
To: badfreeper; Howlin; sweetliberty; All
I have been reading a great number of posts and responses about Mr. Ra
ther, not all, but quite a few, and I have yet to see the question asked, "How in the world did someone
other than Killian's family get his
privet records when at least two family members are still alive?"
Or have I just missed it somewhere?
25
posted on
09/18/2004 7:34:49 AM PDT
by
Budge
(<><)
To: The Sons of Liberty
Well, now the spin seems to be "The guy who outed the memos as frauds is a Republican, therefore Dan Rather was right."
Goes along the lines of OJ is innocent because Mark Furhman said the "N" word.
Or, the Swifites are liars because they recieved a donation from a Texas Republican."
26
posted on
09/18/2004 7:41:57 AM PDT
by
Guillermo
(It's the 99% of Mohammedans that make the other 1% look bad.)
To: tiki
Yep, sumthin's up all right
even Stupid Susan has got brains enough to try to get out of the way of the train wreak that's coming
in her case she must be wishing she never let the cat out of the bag on nationwide TV last week about the DNC going dirty
27
posted on
09/18/2004 7:44:27 AM PDT
by
Wild_Bill_8881
(If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS)
To: Boundless; Buckhead; All
Because Dan was promised the role of "breaking" all the upcoming October surprises, and he can't do that if he gets his sorry butt fired. Well, his sorry butt is fried right now.
My take on this is that Rathergate WAS to be the October surprise, in conjunction with Kitty Kelley's book making charges of cocaine use.
The DNC talking point to accompany this obviously was "Why didn't he take the physical?" repeated ad nauseum. Even poor old Juan Williams was still reciting this talking point the other night.
Another talking point to be used seems to have been that TANG instituted drug testing in the early '70's. Susan Ostrich was reciting this one a few nights ago.
The obvious conclusion that was to be drawn by the hoi polloi was that he didn't take the physical because he was doing drugs.
The damage done to Kerry's poll numbers by the Swift Boat Vets probably caused the October surprise to be hastily moved into September to try to stop the hemmorraging.
Imagine the effect if this had been rolled out at the last minute like the DUI last time. There would be little time to answer.
And certainly CBS didn't expect the forgery to be unraveled in a few hours.
Thanks, Buckhead.
28
posted on
09/18/2004 7:48:06 AM PDT
by
Ole Okie
(What's the new frequency, Kenneth?)
To: badfreeper
Instead, Dan keeps demanding Bush respond to the ''serious questions'' raised by his fake memos. ''With respect, Mr. President,'' he droned the other day, ''answer the questions.'' Laughable indeed. Last night on Fox someone said try telling the IRS that your docs are forged but the content is correct and see what happens !
29
posted on
09/18/2004 7:50:03 AM PDT
by
1066AD
To: Budge
You're not supposed to question the great Rather.
30
posted on
09/18/2004 7:51:15 AM PDT
by
sweetliberty
(We're proud to be Pajama People!)
To: Steel Wolf
[With all the money CBS makes off of that bet, I'm sure they could afford a really nice going away present for Dan.
Like a handshake. Or maybe a pat on the back.]
Or possibly a kick in the derriere, or better yet a kick in the crouch. (Of course I mean cajones but I don't want to get barred.) Godspeed, The Dilg
31
posted on
09/18/2004 7:51:57 AM PDT
by
thedilg
To: RedWing9
CBS case at this point is based on the four "B's":
Burkett, the forger
Barnes, the political hack operative
the Biddy , the pool secretary who at first knew nothing but now claims to know everything
the Bit** producer who put this lying, vicious story together to take down a president
Sounds like a good sitcom.
To: tiki
I have always liked her. She has some integrity.
To: sweetliberty; All
But has that question ever been asked?
SL, have you checked on the little kittens?
34
posted on
09/18/2004 7:59:58 AM PDT
by
Budge
(<><)
To: badfreeper
''With respect, Mr. President,'' he droned the other day, ''answer the questions.'' The president would love to, but he's doubled up with laughter. The documents are fake. Therefore there is no question for the President to answer.
In my company bonuses are awarded for high production numbers. It is not unknown for a supervisor to try to pad their numbers a little to get the bonus. When the padding is discovered the question becomes not, "How did the get such wonderful production numbers?" but "How did this fraud manage to get past the system?" and "Who should be fired?"
Same here. Those questions are now See-BS!'s to answer.
How did the fraud slip by your filters?
Who gets fired?
35
posted on
09/18/2004 8:02:55 AM PDT
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(There is no Chaos. Only very complicated Order. (Presenting Lady Snuggles of the Lethal Yew in PJ's!)
To: badfreeper
No one would destroy three-quarters of a century of audience trust and goodwill for one shattered anachronism of an anchorman, would they? Only if Rather is so absolutely dominant at CBS News that the whole organization has the Jim Jones syndrome. That's the only scenario I can think of that doesn't involve CBS at least aiding and abetting a felony.
To: badfreeper
Mark Steyn in his commentary wrote:
The only reasonable conclusion is that the source -- or trail of sources -- is even more incriminating than the fake documents.
That is EXACTLY the reason why CBS won't reveal their sources. This tells me that the entire operation may have been pre-approved by high-level operatives in both the Democratic National Committee and Senator Kerry's campaign office with a willing accomplice in Dan Rather (who has a personal vendetta against the Bush family); once we find out the truth it will be pretty much "game, set and match" for the Kerry campaign.
To: badfreeper
Rather should consider the words of a famous US newsman:
"For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity."
Mark Twain
38
posted on
09/18/2004 8:05:33 AM PDT
by
mrsmith
("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
To: Budge
"How in the world did someone other than Killian's family get his privet records when at least two family members are still alive?" It depends on what they mean by "private". I have private files which I keep at the company. They do not go into the public filing and storage. They are mine. Things I did and why it was done that way. Backup in case about 5 years down the road a question is raised.
When I leave the company they will either be destroyed or left with the company. I certainly will not be taking them home with me.
And then there are my personal private files that belong to me and that are not part of company records. Those I will take.
39
posted on
09/18/2004 8:10:49 AM PDT
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(There is no Chaos. Only very complicated Order. (Presenting Lady Snuggles of the Lethal Yew in PJ's!)
To: Semi Civil Servant
Kind of like "Four Weddings and a Funeral" the Funeral is for CBS and big 'we are God, we will tell you what to think" MSM.
RIP
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson