Mary Mapes coming up on O'Reilly

FOXNEWS | 11/10/05 | Bill O' Reilly

[sinkspur]

Mary Mapes will be a guest on The Factor shortly.

[cgbg]

I have been thinking about her political party statement.

She claims she is registered in the state of Texas, where party registration is not required.

She lives in the Northeast.

My guess is that she is not a valid resident of Texas and so does not qualify for an absentee ballet.

So, it is likely she does not vote at all.

Her logic: why vote for a Democrat when I can use my media clout to influence millions to vote for Democrats. One vote would be overkill. :-)

[Sunnyflorida]

"W needs to hit back."

I agree. This is one problem I have with Rush. Maja Rushdie seems to think that it is just GW's nature to be passive (Pray for his transgressors?). I think that is fine as far as it goes but the constant beating is taking a toll not on the President personally any more. The attacks are hurting American policy and the health and safety of the nation. The President needs to do what is uncomfortable for him and strike out at these bozos by name and transgression.

[I still care]

I have been thinking about it also. His father was the same way, and I guess it is an extension of the idea "You don't have to boast about it, you just have to keep on doing the right thing and people will notice".

The problem is, the MSM hates him. He could solve the world's problems tomorrow and the NYTimes would bury it on page 1000Z.

[I still care]

I don't know. He may not know anything about the issue, but my impression was he was asking her "unexpected" questions - things she didn't have a prepared answer for.

She would love to get asked something she knew and could try to sound intelligent about. Instead she stuttered and stammered. And he asked her flat out was Bush a liar. Her hatred dripped on the screen.

His job is to expose her. I think he did a good job.

[I still care]

I found the letter on another thread.

"Mary Mapes' actions damaged CBS News as an organizational and brought pain to many colleagues with whom she worked. Her disregard for journalistic standards -- and for her colleagues -- comes through loud and clear in her interviews and in the book that attempts to rewrite the history of this complex and sad affair.

As always, revisionist history must be tested against the facts. Not only are those facts contained in the extensive media coverage that took place at the time, but also in the 200-plus-page report of the independent panel which investigated the matter for more than three months.

We believe those facts speak for themselves. The idea that a news organization would not need to authenticate such important source material is only one of the troubling and erroneous statement in her account."

[dirtboy]

His job is to expose her. I think he did a good job.

He could have taken two approaches in the second segment. One would be to go after the technical issues. She has already shown she will shift away from that argument with the one-in-a-quadrillion possibility that the memos COULD have been typed in proportional fonts by a Lt. Colonel in TANG for his own personal files.

But O'Reilly took a different slant. He said there should be a standard in this situation of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And then he asked her if that standard had been met.

And Mapes said something very revealing - she said basically in her mind that they had been.

And that is the mantra of the modern liberal - their beliefs are all the proof that is needed, and all the other evidence to the contrary is just right-wing talking points. 200,000 dead in Iraq? I believe it so it's so. Bush stole Ohio in 2004? I believe it so it's so. Bush lied to get us into war? [repeat ad naseum].

So in one way O'Reilly missed the chance to trip up Mapes on the details. But in another way he revealed the true underlying pathology at play here.

[HitmanLV]

Mapes saying she has many liberal positions and many conservative positions in this interview was silly. Whenever I encounter a very thoughtful person who tries to give me this line, I consistently say "I don't mean to pry, but can you name 4 or 5 conservative positions you have?"

The person consistently looks like a deer caught in the headlights.

I have no idea why Bill O'R let that one slide.

[FlashBack]

O'Reilly called it a "classic" interview.
I believe he had that twinkle in his eye when he made that comment...it was a "classic" with respect to showing the utter lameness of her argument. She could not answer one question on 'Why Hillery Should Be President'...which was the whole point of Susan's latest book.
I guess my waste of time comment may have been abit off the mark...I should have said it was HILLarious!