How far will CBS Dig the Hole

Is China in sight yet?

from JoeUser Forums
Let me see if I have been accurately following this CBS story. They air an article on a subject 30 years old, that has already been beat to death. But this time, they come up with some new evidence. Ok, that looks good. Then the 'new' evidence is found to be forgeries. Oops! Caught with their knickers down. And that was after 5 years of research. Hmmmmm......wondering who was doing the research.

Then, after stonewalling for days on the forgeries, do they say "oops, we been had!". Nope, they try to defend it. Then the contemporaries get involved, and not even the left leaning media will back up their story, and so if starts to fall apart. And this was after 5 years of research.

But after one week of major CYA, they find who? A secretary! NOt just any secretary, but one that tells them they have fake documents, but the spirit was right. So why did they not find this source in the 5 years of research? Hmmmmmm......

Aw, but it gets better. Seems this source is a rabid democrat still smarting over Al Gore's loss in 2000! (Selected not elected). And it also seems that she is not really the Colonel's personal secretary as Dan Rather and She would have believe, but a pool typist! Hmmmmmm.......

And what is happening at the CBS Bastille? Still trying to defend the documents, still trying to defend the hatchet job. Still trying to save Dan Rather's tail. All the while, the rest of the country is laughing at them and what they have become. At one time, the mighty CBS seemed to be an icon of hard hitting journalism, a source of truth that America could turn to when they thought things were wrong in Washington.

Well, guess what? Things are still wrong in Washington, but instead of Watergate coverup, we have Rathergate coverup! The press has become what they use to report on!

The biggest fallout from this is not whether CBS did a hatchet job or not. The biggest fall out is that no one will trust them ever again. Every breaking story that comes from them is now suspect and most people will not even attempt to quote them as a source without independant verification (SHOCK! Why didn't CBS think of that before inserting foot in mouth?).

Inquiring minds are not even listening to CBS anymore. Instead they are seeking other sources for the latest in this scandal, and putting the pieces together themselves.

There is a lesson here for Joh Kerry. Dan Rather Hatest he Bush's with an all consuming passion, and for that he will pay with his reputation. JOhn Kerry cant keep fomenting the hate against Bush, or he will fall into the same trap. Maybe he will see the problem here, and start bringing usa positive message. A Reason to vote FOR him and not against Bush. But I doubt it.
politics
9,142 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
*sigh* Fallujah. Darfur. Two things more important than this non-story. Enough about IBM Selectric typewriters.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
*sigh* Fallujah. Darfur. Two things more important than this non-story. Enough about IBM Selectric typewriters.


HOw do we know how things are in those cities when we can no longer trust the media to give us an accurate, even if it is biased, report?

The truth is this scandal has tainted the press reporting throughout, and that is why it is still in the headlines.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
I haven't watched television news in years. The sight of the blow-dried blow-hards makes me ill. But we're ignoring Darfur like mad. It's a travesty.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Walter Cronkite should be appointed CEO of CBS.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

*sigh* Fallujah. Darfur. Two things more important than this non-story. Enough about IBM Selectric typewriters.

I hope you post this on every single article that isn't about Fallujah and Darfur.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Total shame... Oh and I am still getting Blog Navigator.. I just waiting for my account to clear.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
The grand comedy of the whole deabte though is that despite the memo itself not being authentic, its contents are.

Has anyone come forward with a well documented rebuttal saying that the contents of the memo aren't true? Apparently not.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: 1tomot1 Posted: Friday, September 17, 2004
The grand comedy of the whole deabte though is that despite the memo itself not being authentic, its contents are.

Has anyone come forward with a well documented rebuttal saying that the contents of the memo aren't true? Apparently not.


Has anyone come forward with any well document evidence to show that the contents are true?
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top


Has anyone come forward with any well document evidence to show that the contents are true?


Killian's secretary so far has come forward to say that the contents are definitely true. She didn't provide documentation, although she did confirm that Bush gained entry TXANG through the privilege of being the son of a wealthy and powerful family. She also stated that Bush behaved arrogantly and seemed to think he was above the rules. She further stated that Killian was outraged because Bush had failed to follow orders and take his required physical.

This testimony seems to fit well with the fact that as of yet not one out of over 500 members of the Alabama guard unit have stepped foward to collect the reward for information proving that Bush fulfilled his duty there.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
This testimony seems to fit well with the fact that as of yet not one out of over 500 members of the Alabama guard unit have stepped foward to collect the reward for information proving that Bush fulfilled his duty there.


This discussion was hammered on before but since you "obviously" missed it, I'll reiterate. If Bush had NOT fufilled his duties he would NEVER have gotten an honorable discharge! I "don't" care "whose" son you are! There are certain requirements that MUST be met BEFORE you get your hands on one of those prized pieces of paper! And I don't care weather or not ANYONE comes forward from the Alabama guard! What I have put forward is the facts and are indisputable!
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top



I "don't" care "whose" son you are! There are certain requirements that MUST be met BEFORE you get your hands on one of those prized pieces of paper!



You're probably right. Even powerful establishment families with fingers in the highest reaches of the ruling elite can't manage to get their hands on a "prized piece of paper."

Gee, not to mention that this same incorruptible entity would never let someone slide past thousands of other applicants for entry, just because of who that someone's family is.

Those kinds of things only happen in other places.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: 1tomot1 - 9/18/2004 2:13:44 AM




I "don't" care "whose" son you are! There are certain requirements that MUST be met BEFORE you get your hands on one of those prized pieces of paper!



You're probably right. Even powerful establishment families with fingers in the highest reaches of the ruling elite can't manage to get their hands on a "prized piece of paper."

Gee, not to mention that this same incorruptible entity would never let someone slide past thousands of other applicants for entry, just because of who that someone's family is.

Those kinds of things only happen in other places.


Getting in is one thing, getting out is a different matter entirely! You obviously don't know much about what it takes to get that honorable discharge. About how "many" people have to be in on it for it to happen
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Killian's secretary so far has come forward to say that the contents are definitely true. She didn't provide documentation, although she did confirm that Bush gained entry TXANG through the privilege of being the son of a wealthy and powerful family. She also stated that Bush behaved arrogantly and seemed to think he was above the rules. She further stated that Killian was outraged because Bush had failed to follow orders and take his required physical.

This testimony seems to fit well with the fact that as of yet not one out of over 500 members of the Alabama guard unit have stepped foward to collect the reward for information proving that Bush fulfilled his duty there.


Only problem for you: SHE WAS A POOL SECRETARY - not a personal secretary.

She also has an axe to grind, admitting that she believes the last election was decided by the Supreme Court of the U.S., "selected not elected".

So, you have a "hostile witness" with an "axe to grind" that is saying that the contents/spirit of FAKED memos is correct, and that is the basis for your "proof" that Bush didn't fulfill his requirements.


Does that mean that when someone, somewhere, who may peripherally be involved in your life while you were in your early years, comes up with a document that says you never finished kidnergarten and says, even after the documents are proved to be cheap forgeries and frauds, that the spirit of the document is correct because you never took the naps you were ordered to take and they know this because they just happen to occassionally have worked with individuals that might have had those thoughts.

Be sure to remember that the strenght of the accussations against you will stand (in your world) since they are made by someone that must absolutely be telling the truth.


What a great world you must be living in.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
In the old days (Sept 7th,2004), The mass media could put up just about any kind of a story and the public would have presumed the story to be accurate. Boys and girls, we live in a new age. If the mass media puts out a story (right OR left), they damn well better have the facts right. Because of CBS and Dan Rather, public trust in the media is on a par with politicians.
5 years investigating and interviewing witnesses. The story was shredded in just over 4 HOURS!
Now the mass media knows that their shoulders are being looked over very carefully.
For those of you that just don't get it, ask yourself just one question.
Have I EVER done anything that could use innuendo to try and destroy me?
Answer that question and I think you may have a better understanding of the real import of this debacle at CBS. This is not political. This is about manufacturing the news to suit Dan Rather's purposes.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Only problem for you: SHE WAS A POOL SECRETARY - not a personal secretary.

She also has an axe to grind, admitting that she believes the last election was decided by the Supreme Court of the U.S., "selected not elected".

So, you have a "hostile witness" with an "axe to grind" that is saying that the contents/spirit of FAKED memos is correct, and that is the basis for your "proof" that Bush didn't fulfill his requirements.


Does that mean that when someone, somewhere, who may peripherally be involved in your life while you were in your early years, comes up with a document that says you never finished kidnergarten and says, even after the documents are proved to be cheap forgeries and frauds, that the spirit of the document is correct because you never took the naps you were ordered to take and they know this because they just happen to occassionally have worked with individuals that might have had those thoughts.

Be sure to remember that the strenght of the accussations against you will stand (in your world) since they are made by someone that must absolutely be telling the truth.


What a great world you must be living in.
0

Zell Miller who is 80? They say he's senile! Yet along comes this woman who is 86? And "she" remembers "everything"! Go figure!
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
If Bush got out of vietnam service, good for him, im sure many of his detractors would have done the same if they too had been born into wealth and privilege.


The thing that's offensive about Bush's dodge is that he supported the war in Vietnam. He just didn't want to fight it himself. I beleive the term for someone like that is "chicken-hawk."

Sure if he was opposed to the war and tried to get out of combat, that would be a different story. Same with Cheney.

Now these two high profile chickenhawks are supporting wars that once again won't impact them personally.

Go figure.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #20 By: 1tomot1 - 9/18/2004 9:18:35 PM
If Bush got out of vietnam service, good for him, im sure many of his detractors would have done the same if they too had been born into wealth and privilege.


The thing that's offensive about Bush's dodge is that he supported the war in Vietnam. He just didn't want to fight it himself. I beleive the term for someone like that is "chicken-hawk."

Sure if he was opposed to the war and tried to get out of combat, that would be a different story. Same with Cheney.

Now these two high profile chickenhawks are supporting wars that once again won't impact them personally.


BEFORE you call GW a "chicken hawk". I REALLY think you should read this link Link

And please "try" to read it with an open mind. i realize that might be hard for you left-leaners!
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
BEFORE you call GW a "chicken hawk". I REALLY think you should read this link Link


True, I think anyone (right or left) would have a hard time swallowing that article. Why? Because not even right wing political pundits agree or support the outline provided by that argument.

Was Bush assigned to AL-ANG? No. He REQUESTED a transfer in order to work on a political campaign. Would anyone refute that? No, not yet at least.

If you followed the news about six months ago you would remember this because there was a mild controversy about Bush's request for a transfer. The controversy being that his initial request had been denied, yet he went anyway. And it wasn't because he remained a member of the TXANG. I don't think even Bush would try to defend that.

The comparison with with Kerry's service?

Once again, please. Bush's TXANG unit wasn't just any unit. They didn't refer to it as the Champagne unit for nothing. It was called that by other military men because it's ranks were padded with many other privileged sons of the wealthy and powerful that were trying to avoid combat in VIetnam.

Chickenhawk sticks.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #22 By: 1tomot1 - 9/19/2004 1:40:01 PM
BEFORE you call GW a "chicken hawk". I REALLY think you should read this link Link


True, I think anyone (right or left) would have a hard time swallowing that article. Why? Because not even right wing political pundits agree or support the outline provided by that argument.

Was Bush assigned to AL-ANG? No. He REQUESTED a transfer in order to work on a political campaign. Would anyone refute that? No, not yet at least.

If you followed the news about six months ago you would remember this because there was a mild controversy about Bush's request for a transfer. The controversy being that his initial request had been denied, yet he went anyway. And it wasn't because he remained a member of the TXANG. I don't think even Bush would try to defend that.

The comparison with with Kerry's service?

Once again, please. Bush's TXANG unit wasn't just any unit. They didn't refer to it as the Champagne unit for nothing. It was called that by other military men because it's ranks were padded with many other privileged sons of the wealthy and powerful that were trying to avoid combat in VIetnam.


Oh you don't agree with the article because why? It don't fit with your ideas maybe. You obviously missed the point where he "tried" to volunteer for combat and was turned because of NOT enough flight hours. His own skipper backs up the FACt he stayed in TXANG! And weather or not you "swallow" the story is immaterial. Everything in there is verifiable! He even tells you just "where" he got his info!
So get "real" and quit swallowing the left's BS.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler, quit swallowing the left's BS? Aw, come on now..if they did that, all they would have are monkey jokes and making fun of the way the president talks. Surely you can't rob them of this. ;o) They need fuel for the Anti-Bush fire everyone is trying to burn brightly..without it, all they got is a little smoke and mirrors.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
And smoke can be "blown" away by the wind! Mirrors.......hell. Just start throwing rocks.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think those that dodged the draft for Vietnam are lower than pond scum!!!!

Hell, i question the sanity of anyone who VOLUNTEERED to go....(like Kerry, meaning he supported the war, too, enough so that he was willing to risk a bit of shrapnel in his ass to earn a few medals from blowing up rice supplies.)


Hey lil whip read this first.


Here is some information that the ''objective'' media avoids telling you. John Kerry joined the Navy Reserve, he did not JOIN the Navy. The Reserve was just like the National Guard. Kerry did NOT know he would be sent to Vietnam.

George Bush joined the Guard for a SIX-year term. If you are drafted, you only have to serve TWO years. Bush probably did not need to pull strings to get into a jet fighter unit. Jets required a greater time commitment than normal Guard postings. Pilots from the unit that he joined were being sent to Vietnam. All the publications that have researched this have concluded that there is NO evidence that he used any influence to get into the Guard. The liberal publications will say that there is no evidence, but it is still suspicious. That is a good journalistic standard? So, do you get it? Bush joined a unit that at the time was serving in Vietnam.

The following is research from aerospaceweb.org:

Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called ''Palace Alert'' from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.



Link
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top


Oh you don't agree with the article because why? It don't fit with your ideas maybe


No. More appropriately that the article doesn't agree with the majority of information available. Chronwatch? Come on. Sure CBS is now questionable, but that doesn't mean we should make the continuously questionable our first line of defense.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #28 By: 1tomot1 - 9/19/2004 11:06:50 PM



Oh you don't agree with the article because why? It don't fit with your ideas maybe


No. More appropriately that the article doesn't agree with the majority of information available. Chronwatch? Come on. Sure CBS is now questionable, but that doesn't mean we should make the continuously questionable our first line of defense.


And OBVIOUSLY you didn't comprehend what you read! He VERY specifically gives ALL his sources of info! So basically you saying Bush's own commanding officer is full of BS? And where would you be getting "your" info from? A source as close to the fact as his commanding officer? I think not.
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
I think the problem of CBS is not that they reported a false new. Every news agency does it sometime. The problem is that CBS has not yet admitted the mistake, and retrack the story. No one will make a fuss if CBS came out and said, "We were trying to break a story, and we are not as careful". End of story. I won't care. The problem is that Dan Rather started to attack other news agencies and said, "... unless someone proves the memo is certainly false, I am standing by it....". No, the responsibilty is on you, CBS, not others. According to what Rather said, he can report whatever he likes and unless you prove him wrong, he will continue to report. No. It should be: unless you are sure the memo is correct, you don't report it. And in the case of a honest mistake and someone points out the obvious, come out and say you made a mistake.