For the FSP Flat Earth Society/(aka Lefty nutjob meltdown)

Quit confusing the animals with facts DeSpurado. Some of these people act like it was W's call to make as to whether he wanted to return to the guard or not after he accumulated the bear minimum (if that!) amount of points necessary to make his 1972 agreement with his country. That's not the way it works, and especially not after your flight status has been revoked because you squealed out of a mandatory physical.

In other news, the former Secretary for Killian says that the CBS documents aren't anything she ever typed, but they were replicas of actual documents that once existed, and the information they contained was accurate.

Quote:

---

HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
...
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”

“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
...
She said she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, though she said they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she could not say whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.

“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said.

---

Dallas News

http://images.mysanantonio.com/opini...91504nacho.jpg

Damn. Maybe CBS should be required to seek 527 status.


abcnews.go.com/sections/W...914-1.html

Casting Further Doubt
Document Analysts: CBS News Ignored Concerns About Disputed Bush Military Records

By Brian Ross
http://a.abcnews.com/images/abcnewscom_83x20.gif

Sept. 14, 2004 — Two of the document experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of a report citing documents that questioned George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

The authenticity of the documents in the report by CBS News' 60 Minutes II has been widely questioned. The documents were allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.

But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.

"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told ABC News.

‘I Did Not Authenticate Anything’

A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them. She said she expressed her concerns to CBS before the 60 Minutes II broadcast.

"I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said. "And that's why I have come forth to talk about it because I don't want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents."

A third examiner hired by CBS for its story, Marcel Matley, appeared on CBS Evening News last Friday and was described as saying the document was real.

According to The Washington Post, Matley said he examined only the signature attributed to Killian and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

At the heart of the dispute is whether any typewriter existed in 1972 that could have produced the documents, with their distinct type style, even spacing, and the tiny raised "th" known as superscript.

Two experts told ABC News today there was no such machine, not even the IBM Selectric Composer, the most advanced typewriter available in 1972.

"This machine is not the culprit for these documents," said software engineer Gerry Kaplan.

Other new questions were raised today by National Guard officials who told ABC News that some of the language and abbreviations in the documents were not in use at the time.

CBS Stands by Its Report

CBS News says it still believes the documents are authentic.

"CBS News did not rely on either Emily Will or Linda James for a final assessment of the documents regarding George Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Ms. Will and Ms. James were among a group of experts we consulted to assess one of the four documents used in the report and they did not render definitive judgment on that document. Ultimately, they played a peripheral role and deferred to another expert who examined all four of the documents used," the network said in a statement.

"Most importantly, the content of the documents was backed up by our reporting and our sources who knew the thoughts and behavior of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian at the time," the statement said.

Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, told ABC News she believes the documents are fake, but that they do reflect some of what her former boss thought of then-Lt. George W. Bush.

"He did have complaints about Bush. Bush missed his physical and went off to Alabama with none of the paperwork, I remember Killian talking about that," Knox said. "But it wasn't in memo file."

But I thought that CBS was matching its critics 'expert for expert'? Like most things I read from the left wing nutters in this forum, that turned out not to be true.


www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Sep14.html

Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags'

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 15, 2004; Page A10

Two document experts retained by CBS News for the disputed "60 Minutes" story on President Bush's National Guard record said yesterday they had warned the program that the memos involved had significant problems but that their concerns were not heeded.

"What I was finding was a lot of red flags," Emily Will told The Washington Post last night. She said she listed five concerns in an e-mail three days before last Wednesday's broadcast and that in a call to a producer the day before the program, "I repeated all my objections as strongly as I could." Will said she told the producer: "If you air the program on Wednesday, on Thursday you're going to have hundreds of document examiners raising the same questions."

In a separate telephone interview, Linda James said that she told CBS the documents "had problems" and that she had questioned "whether they were produced on a computer."

Asked whether CBS took her concerns seriously, James said: "Evidently not."

The concerns of both women were first reported by ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. A third document consultant, Marcel Matley, told The Post on Monday that although he vouched for the signature of Bush's former squadron commander, the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, there was "no way" he could authenticate Killian's purported memos because they were copies.

CBS continued to strongly defend the authenticity of the memos, which it used as evidence that Bush received favorable treatment while he was in the Texas Air National Guard.

CBS News Senior Vice President Betsy West said last night: "As far as I know, Linda James raised no objections. She said she'd have to see more documents to render a judgment."

As for Will's account, West said: "I'm not aware of any substantive objection she raised. Emily Will did not urge us to hold the story. She was not adamant in any way. At one point she raised a concern about a superscript 'th,' which we then discussed with the other experts we hired to examine all four of the documents we aired. We were assured the 'th' was consistent with technology at the time, an assessment that has since been backed up by other experts."

CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius added that both women "played a peripheral role and deferred to another expert," Matley. But James said she did not defer to Matley and merely recommended him to CBS. The network says it relied on two additional document experts, whose names have not been made public.

In another development last night, Killian's former secretary told the Dallas Morning News that she believes the documents are fake but that they reflect authentic memos that once existed.

"These are not real," Marian Carr Knox told the paper after examining copies of the disputed memos. "They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him."

Knox, 86, who acknowledged she was not a supporter of the president -- calling him "unfit for office" and "selected, not elected" -- said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time at the guard, a mechanical Olympia and later an IBM Selectric. But she said the contents reflected the views of her boss, who, she said, kept a personal "cover his back" file in a locked desk drawer.

Knox's recollections suggest that CBS may have been duped about the documents even if the substance of its story was accurate.

The new accounts add to mounting questions about whether the 1972 and 1973 memos obtained by CBS were bogus. This is the first time that people involved in the process have said that they raised warning flags about the memos, whose authenticity has been doubted by the president's wife, Laura, and some outside document experts.

CBS News President Andrew Heyward and anchor Dan Rather have defended the story, saying the program relied not only on document analysis but also on interviews with people who worked with Killian at the time.

Will said she examined two disputed Killian memos, one of which was not used on the broadcast. She said she saw discrepancies in Killian's signature from an undisputed military document bearing his handwriting. Will said she also questioned whether an early 1970s typewriter could have produced the superscript, such as a raised "th," on the memos, and noted differences in the letterhead, the salutation and the way the date was rendered.

All these discrepancies "looked like trouble to me," Will said, adding that she told CBS this "in a resounding way."

James said she examined two disputed Killian memos and found "they were structurally different" from a Killian document released by the Pentagon. James said she questioned differences in the signing of the "J" of Killian's first name, to the point of wondering whether the lieutenant colonel had health issues that would have affected his writing. She said she also told CBS that she questioned whether the superscript could have been produced on a Vietnam War-era typewriter.

Given these concerns, James said, she was surprised that "60 Minutes" went ahead with the story. Both women disputed the contention by CBS that they had deferred to the judgment of other document experts, though both said they could not be 100 percent certain about their findings and had recommended other analysts.

Asked about Will's written concerns, CBS's West said: "The only e-mail we received raised some preliminary points about the handwriting, which [CBS's] other experts addressed and ruled out."

CBS began to doubt Will because she started expanding her role and doing Google searches about Bush's whereabouts at the time, said an executive who insisted on anonymity because the network did not want to go beyond the official statements. But Will said she was merely doing research into whether superscript existed in 1972.

I think it's quaint that the looney left and Dan Rather are reduced to relying on the memory of an 86 year old woman as their defense.

So basically CBS hits the president with a story based on widely regarded faked documents and the words of a Kerry supporter who has changed his story. Great. CBS continues to insist they are true despite the fact that the very experts they consulted to look at the documents raised serious objections to their authenticity. They also engaged in what appears to have been expert shopping.

Lest we forget that Rather has a history of general hostility to the Republican party and geniality to the Democrats.

Originally the image of CBS/Rather was one of being hoaxed. Now it looks like something a bit more than that.

Again, the source of these docs is most likely Burkett. At this point, CBS will probably try to stonewall themselves out of this mess. But if you have Kurtz critiquing their reporting in such a manner as well as other major media outlets investigating this then at some point CBS is going to have to come clean in order to save whatever shreds of credibility they may have left.

But I know, CBS isn't 'Faux News'. It's "mainstream." It's "objective." Yeah fucking right you morons.

CBS and Dan Rather appear to have screwed up royally and Rather's reputation is toast.

Mistakes happen in journalism, there probably isn't a network or paper in the country that hasn't had to correct a story.

But this was just a bad call, period.

But don't go blaming the "lefties" or calling people morons for what CBS did. I had NOTHING to do with their report at all.

Joe...."I had NOTHING to do with their report at all." .......No, you didn't Joe but your party did!:wink

I wouldn't be so sure this was a simple journalistic error. CBS/Rather knew in advance there were significant problems with the documents. You can look at the timing of the 60 Minutes II report, the fact that they interviewed Killian's son and wife who said they disagreed with the docs but did not air that. The fact that they based their claims of privilege for Bush in getting into the Guard on an interview with Ben Barnes, a significant Kerry fundraiser who had changed his story on the matter. That they didn't point out that there were some questions with the documents nor give at least some indication from where the documents came. The original report was very one-sided. CBS' subsequent attempts to defend its reporting were as well, with Rather using Jim Moore. And so on.

You can also notice the DNC's "fortunate son" campaign came out rather quickly (hell, the 'Texans for Truth' showed up last week right after that report, if I am not mistaken) and the fact that the Boston Globe as well as the NY Times were in on the original report.

This looks less and less like a simple journalistic error and like something much more devious.

Rather's history of animus to the GOP and to Bush's father as well as his general fawning over the Demos (as well as fundraising for them) is no secret.

And no, you can't hang this on Rove. CBS had plenty of warning about the docs and ample opportunity to engage in some critical investigation but apparently slamming the president was much more important.

Now it looks like CBS will pay, at least in a major dent to their reputation and Rather will be leaving the "profession" with a major black mark on his career.

Quote:

---

Joe Chalupa:

"But don't go blaming the "lefties" or calling people morons for what CBS did. I had NOTHING to do with their report at a

---

Joe, that all depends on the origin of the Documents and why Dan Rather is so reticent to reveal a source that duped him.

Ask any journalist what he'd do if an anonymous source provided him with blatantly false information. Well, if that journalist isn't Dan Rather, they'd tell you the person's name would be in the lead paragraph of a retraction and apology.

Also, if the source of these docs is Burkett well the motives of that individual are highly suspect.

This was more than a simple error. The sad thing for CBS is that all they would have had to do is admit that they made an error and most of this would have blown over. The more they stonewall at this point and insist the documents are authentic the greater harm that CBS is inviting upon itself.

This was not the first time that 60 Minutes aired a report based on fake docs though. Something for which CBS had to give an on-air apology, if not more.

Dan Rather should go cover hurricane Ivan at ground zero. He would probably get that wrong also. At least he might be able to outblow Ivan.:lol

Oh yeah, this guy is supposed to moderate one of the presidential debates. I think that should be reconsidered.


www.siouxcityjournal.com/...1702ba.txt

Schieffer: CBS needs to prove memos on Bush were authentic

By Dave Dreeszen
Sioux City Journal

CBS News' Bob Schieffer said Tuesday he hopes the network does more reporting to definitively prove the authenticity of memos 60 Minutes II received about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard.

"I think we have to find some way to show our viewers they are not forgeries,'' Schieffer, CBS' chief Washington correspondent and host of the network's "Face the Nation,'' said at a news conference in Sioux City. "I don't know how we're going to do that without violating the confidentiality of sources.''

Schieffer was responding to a 60 Minutes II report last week that referenced memos allegedly written by Bush's former squadron commander, the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The typed memos were part of anchor Dan Rather's investigation that asserted Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting into the Air National Guard.

But there has been growing evidence that the documents are forgeries, with national news organizations citing dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from different word-processing techniques to conflicting military terminology.

CBS has stood by its story, with Rather saying there is "no definitive evidence'' that has emeged to prove the documents are fake.

"He is very confident of his sources,'' said Schieffer, who has talked to Rather daily during the flap. "He says he is absolutely convinced these documents are real.''

CBS, which has declined to reveal the source of the memos, has pointed to its own experts who have verified that documents could have been produced on typewriters of the 1970s. But the Washington Post reported Tuesday that the lead expert CBS retained said he examined only Killian's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

Casting further doubt on the documents, the Dallas Morning News reported Saturday that the officer named in a memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat'' Bush's record had retired from the Texas Air National Guard 1.5 years before the memo was dated. Killian's widow and son also have told reporters that they doubt he wrote the memos, they did not come from his personal possessions and that he admired Bush while in served in the Air National Guard.

Though Schieffer discounted suggestions that Rather received fraudulent documents, he acknowledged the source could have been a Bush opponent.

"People ask me, 'Do I think somebody was trying to set up Dan Rather?' I say, "No that's completely out of the question,'' said Schieffer, who addressed the Siouxland Chamber of Commerce's annual dinner/meeting Tuesday night. "Would somebody do this in an effort to smear George Bush? That may be so. We're in the middle of a political campaign, and this would not be the first campaign where somebody on one side slipped something to a reporter because he feels it would hurt the guy on the other side.''


Dave Dreeszen can be reached at (712) 293-4211 or [email protected]

Memo to Dan Rather from CBS:

"That's it you're gone!!"

"Kenneth! What's the frequency?"

National Review: The First Rathergate

Did someone say "early retirement"?

And that's the way the story goes.

We're gonna find out how much Dan Rather loves the Democratic party.

Because he's either gonna have to admit the Kerry campaign passed him the memo, effectively ending Johnboy's campaign, or he's gonna have to fall on the sword and take the hit to his ego/rep.

http://www.thestate.com/multimedia/t...s/ariaillg.gif

:lol

Republican't keep disputing the legitimacy of the documents because they can't argue the content - its all true.

Man, that's classic!

You're right. It's Rather hard to beat the "fake but accurate" nature of the documents.

Unlike the Swift Boat liars who were 'real but inaccurate'?

So the documents are authentic?

You know danny, I couldn't have asked for a better representative of the title of this thread and trust me, you've had some Rather stiff competition.

You're talking to the wrong man about the Swift Vets.

But you do raise an interesting observation: The Swift Vets had to organize themselves as a 527.

When can we expect CBS to do the same?

Quote:

---

So the documents are authentic?

---

I've told you before, no one is ever gonna prove that legally. It's all speculation and the same old switch of hand that Repugs always do. It's also why we can't talk real issues in this campaign.

Quote:

---

I've told you before, no one is ever gonna prove that legally.

---

Sure, because the matter likely won't end up in court. But anyone with the ability to engage in critical thought knows they are fakes. ****, look for news coverage somewhere else besides democratsundercover.com or whatever.

Quote:

---

It's all speculation and the same old switch of hand that Repugs always do.

---

Oh yes the Democrats never engage in negative personal campaigning. Never try to change the subject. Never use rumor and innuendo.

As for this matter if you think the authenticity of the documents remains a real debate you need your head examined.

Quote:

---

It's also why we can't talk real issues in this campaign.

---

Oh you mean like what Bush was doing 30 years ago?

If the documents are faked, It's not the first time a major news network has been dubbed and it probably won't be the last. CBS thought it did its homework verifying the authenticity of these documents. Even the White House didn't dispute that these documents could be real when CBS released a copy to them.

There is no proof that anyone in the Kerry campaign had anything to do with these documents just as there was no proof that W was behind the Swift boat fiasco.

It's funny how Demoncrats get all caught up in legality when it comes to disproving a Demoncratic lie. But, rumors about President Bush should just be accepted at face value...well, because they say so.

Quote:

---

If the documents are faked, It's not the first time a major news network has been dubbed and it probably won't be the last.

---

You're right. 60 Minutes has used fake docs before.

Oh, so now they might be fakes?

Quote:

---

CBS thought it did its homework verifying the authenticity of these documents. Even the White House didn't dispute that these documents could be real when CBS released a copy to them.

---

The White House simply re-released them with no comment as to their authenticity. Presumably CBS could be trusted to not pass along questionable documents. So much for that.

Quote:

---

There is no proof that anyone in the Kerry campaign had anything to do with these documents just as there was no proof that W was behind the Swift boat fiasco.

---

You're right. This could lead back to the Kerry campaign. Which is all the more troubling because it meant a major presidential campaign was passing along faked documents and a major news organization was attempting to deceive the public for partisan political purposes.

Quote:

---

This could lead back

---

:rolleyes

Yeah, and my aunt could have nuts and be my uncle.

Have you ever really checked, though?

Hey, perhaps I'm just being "fake but accurate."

Judging by what you have pawned off in here as real I think my assertion is quite valid.

I believe -- and the longer Dan Rather waits to clear the air, the country swings to my side -- the DNC or Kerry Campaign are behind the memos.

I notice that neither the DNC nor Kerry are demanding Dan Rather or CBS to clear up the provenance of the documents. But, they're not hesitating to demand a response to the forgeries from the White House.

I know that if I had nothing to do with the memos and there was a growing sense that I had...I'd be demanding that CBS tell the country where the fucking memos came from.

Yes Yoni this is quite odd. I mean if it was some crank who hoaxed CBS why would CBS hesitate now to cut the line and flame that source? Sure, CBS would be concerned about not doing something that would dissuade future sources from speaking out but it would seem to be in the best interest of CBS to establish that you don't hoax CBS without getting the book thrown at you.

I think Bush43 had just as much to gain as the Kerry campaign as far as passing along fake documents to Dan Rather and CBS. Besides, W passes along faked Niger documents in the past and It has done little to hurt his campaign.

Oh of course Bush was behind it all.

Why did Rather go forward with his report using those documents when they had not been properly authenticated and at least some of the experts who saw the documents had raised serious objections which they shared with CBS?

Then let's find out Nbadanallah...

I know the RNC and Bush campaign are dying to know who forged the documents. Aren't you even curious as to why the DNC and Kerry campaign isn't similarly interested?

Quote:

---

I know the RNC and Bush campaign are dying to know who forged the documents. Aren't you even curious as to why the DNC and Kerry campaign isn't similarly interested?

---

CBS has every right to refuse to reveal confidential sources. Kerry has merely distanced himself from this whole thing. Doesn't mean that he's not interested in whether the documents are forged or not. Which has not even been proven, and probably never will.

Dan

How's the view?

http://www.nzavs.org.nz/graphics/headSand.jpg

Quote:

---

"CBS has every right to refuse to reveal confidential sources."

---

You're absolutely right. However, every other news organization that has ventured an opinion on this matter emphatically states that CBS is under no obligation to continue protecting a source that provided false information.

Quote:

---

"Kerry has merely distanced himself from this whole thing."

---

Why would he? CBS's stonewalling is increasing pointing the finger of suspicion at Kerry and the DNC. His disinterest in alot of things is why his campaign is falling apart. If he can't at least get interested in a potential PR explosion, then, why should anyone vote for him?

Quote:

---

"Doesn't mean that he's not interested in whether the documents are forged or not."

---

Sure it does...that, or he's trying to avoid drawing the obvious correlation between his disinterest and Rather's reticence to reveal.

Quote:

---

"Which has not even been proven, and probably never will."

---

LOL -- I hear CBS is getting ready to admit the docs are forgeries...would you like to retract that last statement? Hell, even CBS's "experts" have come out against CBS.

Anyone going to comment on this?

Quick recap of my latest argument:

To find out what USnews was saying when they said Bush only had 12 days of inactive duty:

Quote:

---

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

---

I found this. It reports that there are two seperate requirements for a year. That spent in active duty training and that spent in inactive duty training:

Quote:

---

Air Force Manual (“AFM”) 35-3, “Air Reserve Forces Personnel Administration,” dated June 25, 1969 (“AFM 35-3”), with its periodic amendments was the primary controlling authority available for this analysis.[2] “Satisfactory Participation” was defined as “the manner in which a member meets the training requirements of his reserve assignment.” Training consisted of Annual Active Duty for Training (“ANACDUTRA”) and Inactive Duty for Training (“INACDUTRA”).[3]

Members of the ANG were required to attend 48 INACDUTRA periods per year and complete not less than 15 days ANACDUTRA to achieve the “satisfactory participation” standard.[11] A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]

---

Link

If you go to Lloyd's analysis you can clearly see he tries to add the two to get above a magic number he sets as fifty:
Albert C Lloyd's analysis.

Quote:

---

You're absolutely right. However, every other news organization that has ventured an opinion on this matter emphatically states that CBS is under no obligation to continue protecting a source that provided false information.

---

Turn off Fox and come back to reality for a moment. How many news organizations demanded that Novak reveal his treasonous sources? Did that make one iota of difference?

Its also a very real possibility these documents were trascribed from the original mircofiche during the document destruction in 1997.

They would have to have been designated as such. Nice reach, though. :)

Hey its just a guess since apparently they are real/ but fake.

What do you think about Bush completing his service now?

Then that would mean that Burkett is indeed the source of the docs if that is the current version. Not surprising since Moore was interviewed the first time Rather aired his defense of his report.

Also still does not explain away the discrepancies in the text.

I must have missed something by the way you asked that...I'm not dodging, I'm just busy at work. I'll have to catch up later.


:wink

True. I am just tring to figure out the story. And if you remember I was saying that originally about these documents. They should exist even if these are fakes (not necessarily the one caliming pressure.) So I am wondering if they might have some how been a result of what was destroyed during that incident in 1997?

SW post 2765- no worries SW. I was just asking. Get to it when you have time, just allow me to make my case to you.

Quote:

---

"Turn off Fox and come back to reality for a moment. How many news organizations demanded that Novak reveal his treasonous sources? Did that make one iota of difference?"

---

Why can't you stick to the issue Nbadanallah. No one suggested that Novak's information was false.

The thing that is most troubling is that CBS was in such a rush to get this story to air. What was the matter with waiting a week to get all the documents authenticated by reknown experts? After all, the ones who CBS had examine some of the documents raised some rather clear objections about their authenticity. CBS also seemed to discount the interviews of Killian's son and widow which they conducted. Perhaps my recollection of the original report is fading but I don't recall Rather indicating that the family disagreed with what the purported "new" memos said.

And of course Rather led off the report with the Barnes interview.

Perhaps it is just coincidence or rapid turnaround but the timing of the emergence of the 'Texans for Truth' 527 and the DNC's 'Fortunate Son' campaign seems odd.

Basically, with regards to the 60 Minutes II report, everything seemed to be about timing, about getting it aired on that Wednesday after the GOP convention and prior to the 9/11 anniversary.

Also odd that CBS hasn't identified the source and burned them by now. There's no reason to protect someone who's hoaxed you, I would think.

Even more so when you consider the claim that they had been working on this story for 5 years.

Being a confidential source is technically a contract. I reveal this information to you, you keep my identity a secret. They can't reveal that source in order to keep faith with that system.

Novak on the other hand allegedly broke the law when he revealed the information his source gave to him. The confidentiality source protection has only one widely held exception to its rule. It can not be a shield law to protect criminal activity.

Well apparently said confidential source provided Rather with fake docs so they didnt keep up their end of the deal.

Yeah that happens from time to time. The system (and personally I don't like it) is really geared to fail in that way. But its pretty ancient in terms of how long those rules have been around in the US.

Quote:

---

"Being a confidential source is technically a contract. I reveal this information to you, you keep my identity a secret. They can't reveal that source in order to keep faith with that system."

---

If the contract is verbal, it is implied that the source is providing you with factual information and maintaining confidentiality is contingent up on that. If the contract is written, no news organization worth it's salt wouldn't have that in the contract.

Quote:

---

"Novak on the other hand allegedly broke the law when he revealed the information his source gave to him. The confidentiality source protection has only one widely held exception to its rule. It can not be a shield law to protect criminal activity."

---

"...allegedly..."

Contract intact.

The contract is not verbal. Each company tends to have its own written policy on how it deals with confidential sources. Back in the days when news organizations actually tried to scoop each other with legitimate stories, sources would only go to those who could/would protect them.

Quote:

---

"The contract is not verbal. Each company tends to have its own written policy on how it deals with confidential sources. Back in the days when news organisations actually tried to scoop eachother with legitimate stories, sources would only go to those who could/would protect them."

---

Then I would guarantee you there is language that calls off all bets if the source provides false information.

If there isn't, CBS has stupid lawyers...maybe you should consider applying there, when you graduate, counselor.

This is tradition Yonivore. America sticks to this kind of heritage like fish in water. The problem here is with the free press amendment bestowing a privilege without responsibility. If you are really that worried about it call your congress people to bring back the fairness doctrine, something that might have prevented this fiasco.

The contract tends to get that sacredity (new word) from the freedom of the press amendment, which really should have been written to bestow some responsibility to go along with such a privilege. Such as being accurate, fair, and to serve the people. Because hey they can use the freedom of speech amendment to do everything else.

So, let me see if I have this straight, DeSPURate; CBS News is going to toss its journalistic credibility into the cesspool, allow public opinion to draw the conclusion that, somehow, the DNC/Kerry are involved in this fiasco, and continue to maintain the accuracy of already discredited information in adherance to some "traditional" principle that won't allow them to reveal a lying source?

Alrighty.

If Rather and CBS cannot reveal who duped them they would seem able at least to indicate that they were duped and leave it up to other outlets to ferret out who the source was (Newsweek has already taken their shot).

By the way, DeSPURate, you are aware that forging government documents -- even for political reasons -- is a federal crime, right?

So, under the premise of your "alleged crime" scenario in the Novak kerfuffle, shouldn't Dan reveal his source?

I don't agree with your assesment of what that means. i'm just saying the source will be kept confidential until the source comes forward.

You are also acting on the presumption that the documents are not accurate representations of what really happened. So far they are simply not what they were purported to be. CBS will assess if its a salvagable story, if 60 minutes is something that is worth saving. But bottom line the company is making a profit off of it whether it was a mistake or not.

Fairness doctrine history

If they are forged, if doesn't matter if the content is real or not. Someone attached an officer of the US Military's signature to a memo that was not issued by him.

As long as CBS continues to argue that the documents are genuine they will continue to lose credibility and other media outlets will have no problem in continuing to investigate them.

Oh boy, now CBS is using the 'if fake, still accurate' defense. And of course they are painting the critics as simply partisan Republicans.

Man they are hoping this will blow over.

'if fake, still accurate'- that means the implications of them are still real. What did you expect. They should figure out where they came from at this point, but the story doesn't disappear if they are still accurate representations of what happened. Why should the story just stop?

Did I say it had to stop? No. What they are doing is trying like hell to cover up the one issue (the fake docs) with the other (Bush's guard service).

Not hard to see what they are doing.

I mean it should not be the case that a scandal should ever out weigh the truth. If we did that every politician would be in jail.

They fucked up in how they portrayed the story. I don't know what to say about that, it was sheer stupidity to not have done it in a way that would have protected thier asses and gotten the rest of the press on their side. IE- say they found these documents. They can't verify them for sure. But preliminary meetings with their experts have shown some signs of them being authentic.

Thats what happens though when the message isn't directed by politics though. They were in it for the scandal and the sensationalism. And it didn't help the democrats any.

The whole thing's a scandal.

Still, is not the "if fake, still accurate" standard the least bit troubling? What if a news channel ran a report with a memo written in MS Word and dated 1972 which purported to confirm that Kerry lied about some of his war exploits?

Then what if a network news anchor and investigative journalist continued to insist that even if the docs are fake, it is an accurate claim based on 'other evidence'?

Every sane person who reads this forum knows what the answer would be. If you want to defend CBS' effort to cover up a fraud then that's your prerogative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ock/5_7_54.gif

That was a damn good piece of spin I laid out there though right?

Yeah its troubling. Like I said I will watch the story unfold. I want to see more evidence that they are fake but real, but you have to admit the secratary admitting to them being based upon real ones was pretty damning.

She said "some" of the information was correct.

lets do the actual quotes:


“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”

“The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones,” she said.

Didn't I read somewhere that she's an anti-Bush?

So is half the country.

I really hate that too. It pisses me off. Its not an argument to say someone is antibush so they are obviously lying. The Swiftboats are anti kerry...do you believe them?

Oh so it's fine when a Kerry fundraiser suddenly decides to change his mind and make a claim against Bush but when one of the 250 Swift Vets is found to be a Bush/Cheney volunteer well that's a major problem.

Quote:

---

"So is half the country."

---

Actually, it's less than half...he has a 52-53% approval rating at the moment.

Well withing the MOE. :lol j/k

Anybody know the record for thread length in here?

I still have the kidd thread on my HD somewhere. This was definetely faster.

Well, c'mon, let's keep it going...say something asinine, DeSPURate.

This girl is freaking ugly:
http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/haight/969/hottie1.jpg

I said asinine, not stupid.

Look, if Kerry wants any hope of winning this election he will get the word to the DNC and the 527s to stop the National Guard bullshit. By harping on that crap you give the Swift Vets pretty of reason to still be in the fore, you confirm the perception that the Democrats are all about hating the president personally, and it confirms the perception that they don't have much else to talk about. Also, you crowd out the ability of Kerry to land any real criticism on the Bush administration in the national media cycles. As we can see not a lot of people think the National Guard issue matters. It's not because it hasn't been presented correctly. It's because people have already made up their mind about Bush. The criticism about how he got in the Guard has been levelled at him in 2000 and earlier this year. The same goes for the notion that he missed a physical or whatever. The vast majority of voters do not care.

This campaign is so fucked up as has been pointed out before in here.

Hey, but it's entertaining.

Damn, did Karl Rove develop some kind of evil mind control technique which he is using on the Democrat party? He couldn't have asked for a better scenario in this election.

A Perfect Storm.

I really wouldn't be surprised if Bush took every Electoral Vote but D.C.'s

www.nytimes.com/2004/09/1...&position=

Quote:

---

Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” - then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

---

Indeed.

Wouldn't a "none" have been sufficient?

Unless, of course, that would have been disingenuous.

Quote:

---

“what difference would it make?”

---

Uh, it's a crime to forge government documents.

It doesn't make a difference to the argument at hand. You can't take a quote and construe it to mean he is reffering to an anticedant to which he clearly was not.

But, if his hypothetical is true, it does make a difference...it suggests a crime.

And, I don't know what the **** you said.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/html//e...s/popcorn2.gif

Don't stop now.

There's just something about the idea of Burkett sitting on his porch and thinking "ya know, I bet I can whip up one of them there Bush documents on my 'puter, take 'em down to Kinko's, send them over to Rather, and nail Bush's ass to the wall!" that makes me laugh.

Pass the popcorn timvp. This shit is entertaining!:lol

Yeah, and make it a Jumbo!

A thing of note is that David Van Os, Burkett's attorney, is a Democrat candidate for the Supreme Court of Texas and that Burkett is the head of Van Os' campaign steering committee. It does make you wonder if there might be more of a connection to other parts of the Democrat party.

You know, some fake memos today, a federal judgeship tomorrow...

I've faked it. You know, when it's enough already and I just want to get some sleep.

God, please push this to page 26, I'm gonna get busted if that scantily clad woman, at the top of page 25, comes up one more time...





































































































































Thanks!

Maybe that'll be enough lines...

It's not the length that matters, Yoni!! :p