The smear campaign against Bush

Remove all ads!

This just in: CBS Stands by Document's Authenticity

 

I think CBS is digging even a deeper hole for itself. It has also come out the when Ben Barnes claimed to have used his influence as Lt. Governor to get GWB into the National Guard...he was not yet Lt. Governor. Anyone notice that he is also the co-chair for the Kerry 2004 campaign? Why haven't the press jumped on this link to the Democratic party?

Oh, and the Officer named Stoudt that was referred to in the Killian document as "sugar coating" Bush's record...he'd been out of the service for 18 months already!

These are lies...there may be legitimate questions about how GWB fulfilled his service commitment...but this story is a lie.

 

Now this: New Doubts About Memos Arise

 

Ouch, that has to hurt. When will people learn that the cover-up is always far worse than the crime. Either CBS is being rail-roaded or they are digging one deep hole to bury themselves in.

 

I personally think CBS was duped, if these are indeed forged documents. I don't necessarily believe they were deliberately doing a hatchet job on Bush, just that they were lazy in their fact checking. They did have people they believed to be experts examine the documents - they just didn't ask enough questions, of the documents or the experts. If they are indeed fake, and CBS knew this and ran with it anyway, they deserve every headache they get. This could even kill Dan Rather's career - at least the year or so left before he retires.

Thing is - even if they were forgeries, is there any doubt as to whether Bush got preferential treatment? Really? Especially since Killian's own secretary and others have come out as saying that despite they believe the memos to be fake, they do reflect the sentiment of those involved and the content of memos that did indeed exist at one time. You also have to take into account that the White House apparantly thought the sentiments they conveyed were accurate enough to release the memoes themselves after CBS sent them copies. If what they conveyed was so outrageously wrong, you'd think they would have raised the red flags immediately. It's not like they don't have the best forgery experts on earth, the FBI, at their beck and call or anything.

Part of why I doubt CBS was trying to do a hit piece on Bush is because if they really want to hit Bush hard, they could certainly do better than this. It's not like these memos were revealing anything all that surprising. They thought they had a good story, they went with it. Sloppy, yes, and surprising for a news team with such a reputation; and I do concede that a more liberal producer would be more likely to overlook details in a story with a paralel agenda to their own. But this has yet to be proven, however, and I really doubt 60 Minutes would risk their reputation like this if they didn't think the story was legit.

I have a question for the Bush supporters here who are complaining about the hypocrisy of the left.

Did it bother you that, back in February 2004, Fox News broadcasters Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, and John Gibson, on several occasions on their respective shows, all showed a photo of John Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda on a podium at an anti-Vietnam War rally in the 1970s, insinuating all that comes along with the "Hanoi Jane" tripe. It turns out the photo was fake. Did hordes of media critics demand retractions from Hume, Hannity, and Gibson? No. Did Hume, Hannity or Gibson ever offer a retraction or explanation for this? Of course not. Fox News contributors, on a regular basis, still say that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, MoveOn.org compares Bush to Hitler, any many other popular memes that have been debunked a thousand times, yet still trickle down to the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, blogs and other conservative media outlets to be repeated thousands of times to the public. Yet CBS screws up once, and suddenly this is the dastardly liberal elite getting their comeuppance?

If the "intellectual dishonesty" of all this really bothers you, where do you draw the line? By the network?

 

I can't speak for everyone, but yes the photo of Kerry and Fonda did upset me. I also believe their were hordes of people that demanded retractions. While HH&G may never have issued retractions they instead let the issue die.

The CBS screw-up is much more serious because of who they are. Fox news is ridiculed as being Faux news and Moveon.org nobody takes serious as a news source. CBS was one of the networks that led the charge to discredit/prove wrong the Swift Boat Veterans. Their being "sloppy" is far worse because of who they are and not being able to admit the possiblility of a mistake is making them look childish.

To use an analogy if a prediction that a comet is going to hit the Earth is made who are you going to be more upset with for making an incorrect prediction, NASA, MIT, or the local junior high astronomy club?

 

If Fox News has reported on forged documents the way CBS did, there would be calls for Congressional Hearings, its immediate pulling from the air, and more.

Fox is ridiculed by people who don't like the fact that the liberal medial empire now has competition.

Just my opinion.

 

Then why were not those calls shouted when Fox aired forged photos of Kerry?

What liberal media empire?

 

That statement is so ridiculuous it's not even funny.

Fox gave every credence to the Swift Boat Vets, despite them being proven and demonstrable liars. Fox does what CBS did on a regular basis, and worse. The difference is most CBS viewers don't count on CBS as their only source of what they consider to be "reliable, trustworthy" news. Most Fox viewers do. People watch CBS to satiate their addiction to CSI (all 3 of them!), and occasionally tune in for an interesting 60 Minutes story. People watch Fox for "fair and balanced" news when it's anything but. Fox people even admit the only purpose that tagline serves is to piss off CNN.

CBS blowing one story does not invalidate decades of journalistic integrity any more than the conservative blogosphere being right this one time validates all their other nutty rantings and mountains of bad, inaccurate research. These are the same nutjobs who "proved" Kerry didn't deserve his medals because he shot himself, after all. The Drudge Report, before anyone ever heard of it, also tossed thousands of anti-Clinton smear-bombs at the wall before one finally stuck - Monica Lewinsky. But Drudge is still a revolting douchebag, despite being right once. I'll stake the integrity of 60 Minutes against Fox News, Drudge and LittleGreenFootballs.com any day of the week.

And the "liberal media empire" is a lame excuse conservatives use to justify dismissing news stories and journalism that is critical of conservative policy and those who benefit from it, yet never complain when the news favors those policies and benefactors.

Just my opinion.

[ September 15, 2004, 21:47: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I found an interesting article in The Nation on Bush's time in the national guard, and why he left Texas so apruptly in May 1972, and that, so sees it The Nation's Russ Baker, has to do with Bush's little drug problem in his "wild days".

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040927&s=baker

The viciousness of the attacks on the memos could also be explained by that they are coming close to the point of where Bush would be really damaged - "Bush the potheaded pilot" isn't really the image a "responsible War Persident" wants to have about his Vietnam time record.

 

I saw no forged photos of Kerry. Trust me, because I probably would have loved them. Of course, without a TV I don't get much Fox News. I have to actually read my news.

On the Swift Boat Vets ... I could say lots but will try to keep it short. First, they never said he shot himself, (don't watch too much Hardball Joc). They said some of the wounds were self inflicted, major difference. He launched a grenade too close and caught flak. At least that's one of the possibilities. Second, if there is not a liberal bias in the mainstream media, why did Kit Kelly's Bush-Bashing book land her 3 days on the Today show, when they never brought on a single Swift Boat Vet?

Also, we do know what Bush did in the National Guard. Check this out:

But that's not really the point. Only approx. 16% or so of voters think Bush's National Guard time is worth thinking about. This is just the Kerry campaign getting desperate.

My opinion again, but this whole thing is kinda fun to watch this who Just think, forged documents like this could have had a minor impact on the election. People at CBS doubted their authenticity, people at the DNC had questions (check out http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211690/posts) ... but 60 minutes ran with it and now is forced to defend it. I really think Dan Rather should resign over this. Rather was so strong against Nixon, now he has become what he hates.

 

While I am a Kerry supporter, I really have to agree with this statement. Who cares if Bush got out of service early? Who cares if he got preferential treatment while in the Guard. Similarly, I don't care if Kerry got his Purple Hearts by pulling a Forrest Gump and rescuing half a dozen fellow soldiers or stubbing his toe on the bulkhead if his swift boat. Why does anyone care? Aren't these complete non-issues of 30 years ago that bear no meaning when considering whether someone will be competent as the president of the U.S.?

 

Disagreed. Those are matters of courage. Of having a certain backbone, so to say. A strong character and willingness to stand up for what the man has to defend. People change, granted, but the issues here are not all so irrelevant.

 

Well! We cant have the American public thinking about the 1000+ dead kids in Iraq can we? Or the corporate bloodsuckers who control both Dems and Reps can we? Or the state of the schools? Or how many people lack health insurance? There are many issues the establishment seems to rather talk about than what is really going on.

There is also the classical phenomena of tit for tat, Dems said something bad about my guy so we say something bad about their guy and so on. Round and round we go.

 

Because Kitty Kelley is a famous gossip book writer, writing an outrageous book at a controversial time, and NBC knew they'd get ratings off of it. Just like when they've invited Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and other conservative fembots onto the Today show to push their Clinton/Liberal bashing books. The only "bias" major networks have is for ratings, and they know partisans will make it appointment TV when they put their heros or arch-enemies on. The people interested in Kelley read the National Inquirer. Her book won't be taken seriously by very many people. Not the case with the Swift Boat vets.

And - again - the Swift Boat Vets are proven and demonstrable liars, first of all, and they got plenty of airtime on This Week on ABC and other network political shows despite that. There hasn't been anywhere near as much media scrutiny for the Swift Boat liars as there have been for the Rather memo fiasco, and that was just one incident, and one aspect of a much larger story. The Swift Boat liars stories were so full of holes, inaccuracies and flat-out lies that even Bill O'Reilly told them they were full of it. Bill O'Reilly!! Can you explain why the "liberal media" gave these jerks a free pass?

This Rather scandal isn't evidence of an overwhelming Liberal media bias. If anything, it's the opposite. And - no offense - but I'll try to ignore that you just cited Free Republic as a source, as well. That's like arguing against wife beating and citing Ike Turner. If I cited Democratic Underground or IndyMedia as a source, would you take me seriously?

 

I never said it was irrelevant. I said it is a non-issue, as in the media making a big deal of something that isn't a big deal.

That happened in excess of 30 years ago. No matter how brave they were or were not 30 years ago tells me nothing regarding the competency they will or will not have as president.

I'm not saying that courage isn't a virtue, simply that courage isn't the only thing we should base our vote on, and clearly, just because they were courageous 30+ years ago tells us nothing about what they are like today. I mean think about - Bush and Kerry are in the 50s right now. They were in their 20s during these incidents. What 50-something person ISN'T different than what he was like in his 20s?

 

The truth about Bush's Vietnam service record!

Bush exposed! The Truth comes out!

[ September 26, 2004, 22:57: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Hey, that's a very important issue, i didnt know that yet. If Bush can't hold his liqor, he is not the best man for the job.

 

Well, this does make some sense, since King George is the most Nixsonian president we have had - well, since Nixon. His disregard for the truth, his vindictiveness towards his perceived "enemies," his dislike of congress, his dislike for our system of government and the Constitution (which puts checks on executive power), his blaming the press for his problems and bad policies, his love of secrecy, his willingness to hide from the American people, makes him very much like Nixon.

I not sure if Rather hated Nixon or not. But enemies often become much like each other. I will agree with that much of your post.