Posted on 11/06/2004 8:02:23 AM PST by fastattacksailor
What did Newsweek know — and when did the magazine know it?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
What makes you so sure that McCain isn't the Newsweek source?
I don't trust McCain and doubt that he would have told the Bush people about this. He must have calculated that Bush was likely to win and it was in his own interest to appear to be a loyal Republican during the campaign, while trying to sabotage the campaign in little ways. If Kerry had won, he would have been delighted, and could have had a cabinet position if he wanted one.
I bet some SMSM outfit is holding the story on kerry's real discharge from the Navy in case he runs against hillary in '08.
we'll pay back mccain. great job on the campaign finance reform,john.
It confirms what we've known all along. Kerry wanted the power and prestige of the presidency to fulfill his ambition. It had nothing to do with America or Americans and how to better our country. There was no principle which couldn't be changed, there were no core values that couldn't be nuanced. The man married a billion dollars, he sure wasn't doing it for the money. Poor Mr. JFK wanted to go into the history books and he still may play a prominent role when the story of Bush is told, we all remember Benedict Arnold too.
"McCain knew it even before Newsweak did."
Yikes-- good point. Note to self: NEVER TRUST MCCAIN.
By now, everyone should know the MSM is a bunch of pimps and whores for the democrat party.
Read the whole series! Here is a sample, released today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/
"... The Swifties had bought only a few hundred thousand dollars' worth of ads, but each played over and over—free—on the cable channels, CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox. The Swift Boat charges were the source of constant debate in the blogosphere, the new online world of bloggers, the modern-day Internet pamphleteers whose screeds were widely read—especially by the young bookers and producers who set the agenda on cable TV. With all this churning in the new media, the story was bound to spill out into the undecided electorate. ...
The Kerry campaign did work closely with the major dailies, feeding documents to The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe to debunk the Swift Boat vets. The articles were mostly (though not entirely) supportive of Kerry, but it was too late. The old media may have been more responsible than the new media, but they were also largely irrelevant."
Okay, to be fair to Newsweek....this is done every election cycle. A few reporters are allowed to be embedded with the campaign in essence. The deal: None of the material is published until after the election. If this weren't the deal, or if the idiots in the press didn't keep their word, no campaign would allow them to come along. They certainly would never be privy to the candid moments that could potentially embarass the candidates.
Yep. I don't have problems with reports actually trying to be ethical. I just wish it applied to both sides of the political spectrum.
Moreover, Kerry — seeking the presidency in a time of grave international danger — promised to put McCain in charge of all U.S. foreign policy should they win.
"You're out of your mind," McCain reportedly told Kerry. "I don't even know if it's constitutional."
...
So why did Newsweek sit on the news for all those months?
Because the magazine promised the campaigns that anything obtained by this team of journalists during the course of the campaign would go unreported until the election was over.
Well, I guess that explains why NEWSWEEK didn't report it, but not why noone else did. No way Newsweek had sole knowledge.
That's great....McCain tells newsweek and newsweek sits on the story.
Does anybody do anything for the constitutional good of the country anymore ?
In finishing off Kerry here, though, they are doing the Democratic Party's bidding. The Dems have to take Kerry down--he has to be, personally, the reason they lost.
They can't have lost because people rejected their ideas, or because the party as a whole has lost its values, sense of morality, and has just become about winning.
They have to have lost because Kerry was an inferior candidate. Who knew?
Newsweek is trying to re-write history here and come up with all sorts of reasons why Kerry lost. And they all have to do with him.
The night of the election, as soon as things started to go south for Kerry, I knew they'd turn on him. I knew they'd start going after him, eating their own. They didn't really like him to begin with, but until the election was over they had to pertend that they did.
They don't have to pretend anymore. Now they're trying to clear the way for '08.
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.