Posted on 09/20/2004 7:41:52 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
Rather would call his daughter an unimpeachable source and as her father would find it hard to out her as the source. makes ya kinda go hmmmmmmmm
Rather's blathering that though the documents were phony what they said was true defies all logic. If CBS is to have any credibility they need to fire Rather and clean house in its news bureau. The pathetic attempt to say we were unknowing victims of a hoax is a joke given the obvious forgery of the memos.
I do. For far too long, the media has cultivated an image of itself as being somehow above all the human failings to which the rest of us are subject. Sorry, won't wash. Reporters and commentators all up and down the media food chain — and that most definitely includes famous network anchors — are just as capable as anyone else is of being just plain crooked and dishonest.
If this scandal does nothing else, I hope it at last bursts the bubble of fantasy that's surrounded the media for far, far too long. A fantasy that says, if it's in print or on TV news, it must be true. A fantasy that says there is always a real, live human being behind the media's anonymous sources, instead of a completely made up quote or story from no one. A fantasy that says big media is always purely objective and working for the public good. A fantasy that says the media has no agenda of its own. Hah!!!
Ah, excellent analogy. I get a crayon counterfeit bill, and pass it on. When they arrest me, I cry, "I wasn't the originator. I only passed on what I thought was a legit bill." That'll certainly pass straight-face muster in a court of law, right?
Here is the logic that dems would have us accept:
Every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had WMD's.
George Bush acted on the intel and invaded Iraq.
No WMD's have been found.
Therefore, George Bush lied!
and now,
Every qualified expert said that the National Guard documents were forgeries.
Rather used the documents anyway.
Now, CBS is admitting that they were forgeries.
Therefore, Rather was duped!
"The answer is YES. As I understand it, any documents that Burkett claims to have seen at a NG office was like 7 or 8 years ago. Are you suggesting that Karl Rove started a plan 3 or 4 years before Bush was even elected to take down CBS in 2004?"
Well, when did Rove first meet Bush? When did he first know that Bush was likely to run for higher office? If I were a political "mastermind" I would want to find everything possible that could be used against my candidate. I would do private investigations and uncover every rock that was out there. If there was the slightest question that this NG story would come back to haunt his candidate, why not begin planning early how best to knock it down?
I've never put any stock in the NG story as something that should be held against Bush. But knowing the liberal press as I think I do, they will do anything and everything to put the worst possible face on a conservative candidate. Look at what they do with the Iraq war. When's the last time they gave a positive report on Iraq? When's the last time they looked to the long term view of the war on terror? Knowing them as I think we do, perhaps the choice was made to head them off at the pass; to ambush them with a story that would knock the other campaign off stride so that it cannot recover.
I didn't post this with the intention of denigrating Karl Rove, but I've been trying to figure this story out from the get-go and all the pieces of the puzzle didn't quite fit yet.
Now if Burkett admits that he made up the documents, this speculation is obviously wrong. He might say that he concocted the forged documents based on written notes he made from the original documents found in that office. That's another possibility. I'll be interested in the statement from CBS. That might clear up everything.
What I want to know is: WHO is going to go to Federal Prison for this or is it just going to GO AWAY?????
The green crayon drawing of a $100 bill has inspired a new tag line. See if you can guess where it came from.
CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED (drudge Siren)
Posted by savedbygrace to Jewels1091
On News/Activism 09/09/2004 11:46:30 PM CDT · 635 of 816
I've been rethinking this thing and I've changed my mind a bit. I've been saying this afternoon and evening that CBS will refuse to out the source.
Now I'm thinking they have no real alternative. If they don't, imaginations will run rampant that their source is connected to Team Kerry. This would hand the election to Bush-Cheney.
But what if the source IS connected to Team Kerry. Then the pressure will be on CBS to refuse to turn over. But if they won't give him up, then rumors will multiply and Kerry will lose.
Yep, it looks bad for Kerry-Edwards. How ironic is this? It's nowhere near Purim, but we have a real-life example of the Purim story right here in River City.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies
I think the RAthER interview of Burkett was designed to draw attention away from former Senator Cleland, whose name came up repeatedly over the weekend in TV news. CBS would prefer to depict itself as a dupe than reveal Dan as a willing accomplice in an attempt to skew an election with fradulent documents.
ROFLMAO
(That qualifies as "Quote of the Day".)
LOL
The question is how far up the DNC heirarchy did they go?
"Modified Limited Hangout"
How on God's green earth would anyone in the White House be capable of IDing the PERSONAL documents of the President's superior at the TANG? Did CBS think that copies of those personal documents somehow made their way to Bush's Pentagon file (and that CBS & the rest of the world had somehow glanced past them)? What was CBS thinking? Did Rather or Mapes expect Dan Bartlett to verify Killian's signature, WHAT? Those documents were shown to the White House staff for no reason other than to make Bush sweat, so Rather could luxuriate in contemplation of tearing off his pound of flesh and then dicing it.
CBS expecting the White House to research this smear is beyond clueless and arrogant.
By the way, when did Dan Rather get a face-lift? Since I've never watched the program until recently, I noticed Dan has the the tell-tale horizontal eye pull when he was ambushed by Fox News reporter.
Indeed. But who WOULD have been an unimpeachable source? Surely, Cleland is no more unimpeachable than Burkett. Cleland didn't serve in the TANG. Where would HE get the documents, and wouldn't an ethical news organization checked HIS source? No, the answer is "it depends on what the meaning of 'unimpeachable' is." Strictly in the greedy, vengeance-lidded eye of the recipient.
I care less about who sent them than who TYPED them.
Rove was at the RNC when Bush Sr was RNC Chairman--'73--and may well have known the family before then.
Much as I believe Rove has the talent, I don't believe he'd flirt with anything as potentially dangerous as this--even if he'd been careful enough to avoid breaking the law in any way.
Why is it so hard to accept that the new folks at Kerry and/or the DNC are MORE than capable of perpetrating a crime? They've got a TRAITOR leading them. What crime's heavier?
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.
