Posted on 01/11/2005 5:07:23 AM PST by johnny7
Edited on 01/11/2005 5:24:39 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- President Bush was re-elected, and Dan Rather wasn't.
That, in a nutshell, is the outcome of a bitter four-month struggle between the White House, which insisted there was no basis for the "60 Minutes" report casting doubt on the president's National Guard service, and a major network whose controversial anchor chose to give up his job before the release of the outside panel's report that sharply criticized him Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at southcoasttoday.com ...
Yeah... he's stupid... and besides, he looks like a chimp.
“If you're a non-Bush person, you'll be dismayed that George Bush will appear to be vindicated and validated by CBS's humiliation.”
Nobody knows the real truth. Go back to your homes... break it up and move along.
“ ...there was just as much sloppiness, just as much of a rush to judgment and just as many mistakes" during Clinton's impeachment. "I don't think we're certain the president fully fulfilled his National Guard service,"
You persecuted our our 'Golden Boy'... our spoiled, narcissistic rapist from Arkansas! WE HATE YOU!!!
" ...If anything constitutes unprofessional media conduct, it's paying nearly a quarter of a million dollars to a right-wing commentator(Armstrong Williams) to push out political propaganda,"
Look... they do propaganda all the time. Get over it!
Nice post Johnny Mass. Apples and oranges if you asked me.
Hopefully, you, me and others of similar ilk can prevent what you predict will occur in our lifetime and secure America for future generations. Sons of Liberty indeed!
The death of the MSM is self-inflicted and well earned.
'So what...he still went AWOL'
I'm having a stroke . . . a heart attack . . . I'm feeling dizzy . . .
Chris Matthews is now on with Imus: Defending Bush's Guard service and blasting CBS!
Everyone "stained" by the "current" scandal must go. The entire culture must change or every employee should begin an immediate search for another employer...with a future and that is not NBC or ABC.....
The elephant in the corner of the room doesn't seem to get much attention.....does it?
Actually, the media in Cincy framed it quite a bit differently. They said that the report showed "political bias" could not be ruled out or in. In other words, to prove it they would have to get the principles to "admit" it.
Scot Peterson was convicted, however, on far less circumstantial evidence than this.
The smoking gun (circumstantially?) is the Mapes/Lockhardt connection that was proven in the report. Clear thinking Americans who've followed this story know that this entire RatherGate fiasco was a political hit.
Meanwhile, nary a peep about John Kerry's less-than-honorable discharge nor his refusal to release his records.
This thread needs your JfKerry traitor information, Tonk.
The WP excerpt-only rule applies no matter which paper carries the article.
Really? In the end, the courts supported the charges made against Clinton. However, there weren't enough Senators who decided that Slick's actions warranted removal from office. And Slick repaid that trust by attacking Kosovo and pardoning Marc Rich, among many other things.
That and the fact that Mapes wanted the report to run a week before the election instead of in September.
The claim that there was no proof that the story was politically motivated, and the statement that there was no concrete proof that the memos were forgeries are the two biggest whitewashes in the report. After all, those were the most damning charges - and the commission decided that absolute proof of both was needed instead of logical examination of the evidence to a standard of preponderance.
This isn't accurate.
The report said that clear political conflicts of interest (read: bias) existed (Burkett-Mapes-Lockhart), but that they couldn't conclude that these conflicts motivated Mapes. If you read through the report, though, the reason they couldn't make the conclusion is simply because they chose not to explore Mapes' motivation in any detail.
They concluded that she and CBS had a "myopic zeal", but they didn't ask why she had such a zeal for this specific story about this specific candidate. Why no "myopic zeal" for a damaging story about the other candidate...say a swiftboat story? Bias by omission, if you ask me.
He chose to resign so he would not have to suffer the ignominy of being fired!
I think the MSM's repsonse to Rather-gate is to keep pushing the Armstrong Williams point. But Armstrong Williams (a) is not a reporter, he is a commentator with an admitted point of view, and (2)he wasn't trying to push phony documentation and influence an election. Williams should however have disclosed his position.
It wasn't political. Everyone hates Bush. All her friends hate Bush. She never met anyone that didn't hate Bush. Anything bad about Bush must be true and if its not it should be true.
The Kerry campaign had an ad ready to run the next day. Talk about colusion.
Tell that to: Linda Tripp, and;
Paula Jones, and;
Juanita Broaddrick
Kurtz's analysis could have been named: The RNC vs. the DNC. Instead of taking CBS to task, all Howie seemed interested in doing is getting each political party's spin on it.
Since Howie is supposed to be the WP guru on the media, it seems weird that he just regurgitated the comments of others, instead of offering some original insight.
Talk about a story that backfired. The TANG story never really touched Bush, but the entire MSM now has a "smell" because of it.
This without a doubt is the biggest stinking pile I have read in the Post in weeks. How stupid does Kurtz think we are?
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.