should dan rather resign?

Kevrockcity

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
4,442
Location
Los Angeles
for those that have been paying attention to the bush awol killian memos, it's almost certain now that they're forgeries - the expect cited by cbs now claims he didn't authenticate the memos:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html

it looks like 60 minutes and rather were (willing) victims in a hoax, here, which in and of itself is not a firing offense. however, what is troubling to me is the manner in which dan rather has conducted himself as evidence has piled upon itself demonstrating these memos to be false - going on cnn to personally vouch for their authenticity and then trying to cover up his mistakes. this story, with all the obvious red flags, should never have went on the air. but it did. if some sources are correct in saying that these memos were supplied to cbs by the kerry campaign (which should have raised even more flags), the shit is really going to hit the proverbial fan.

personally, regardless how one feels about bush's national guard record, i feel there has to be some accountability at cbs and 60 minutes for such a great breach of conduct. i'd be surprised if we get so much of as an on air apology.

note: i do not intend for this thread to be a rehashing of bush's service, or kerry's service, or iraq, but simply a discussion of journalism ethics and responsibilty.
 
for those that can't read the linked article:

Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers

By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08


The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

Matley's comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes." The program was part of an investigation asserting that Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting out of commitments to the Texas Air National Guard. On last night's "CBS Evening News," anchor Dan Rather said again that the network "believes the documents are authentic."

A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.

The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.

"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer, author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.

Newcomer drew an analogy with an art expert trying to determine whether a painting of unknown provenance was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. "If I was looking for a Da Vinci, I would look for characteristic brush strokes," he said. "If I found something that was painted with a modern synthetic brush, I would know that I have a forgery."

Meanwhile, Laura Bush became the first person from the White House to say the documents are likely forgeries. "You know they are probably altered," she told Radio Iowa in Des Moines yesterday. "And they probably are forgeries, and I think that's terrible, really."

Citing confidentiality issues, CBS News has declined to reveal the source of the disputed documents -- which have been in the network's possession for more than a month -- or to explain how they came to light after more than three decades. Yesterday, USA Today said that it had independently obtained copies of the documents "from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations" who declined to be named "for fear of retaliation."

It was unclear whether the same person supplied the documents to both media outlets. USA Today said it had obtained its copies of the CBS documents Wednesday night "soon after" the "60 Minutes" broadcast, as well as another two purported Killian memos that had not been made public.

A detailed examination of the CBS documents beside authenticated Killian memos and other documents generated by Bush's 147th Fighter Interceptor Group suggests at least three areas of difference that are difficult to reconcile:

• Word-processing techniques. Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted "th" in expressions such as "147th Group" and or "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron."

In a CBS News broadcast Friday night rebutting allegations that the documents had been forged, Rather displayed an authenticated Bush document from 1968 that included a small "th" next to the numbers "111" as proof that Guard typewriters were capable of producing superscripts. In fact, say Newcomer and other experts, the document aired by CBS News does not contain a superscript, because the top of the "th" character is at the same level as the rest of the type. Superscripts rise above the level of the type.

• Factual problems. A CBS document purportedly from Killian ordering Bush to report for his annual physical, dated May 4, 1972, gives Bush's address as "5000 Longmont #8, Houston." This address was used for many years by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. National Guard documents suggest that the younger Bush stopped using that address in 1970 when he moved into an apartment, and did not use it again until late 1973 or 1974, when he moved to Cambridge, Mass., to attend Harvard Business School.

One CBS memo cites pressure allegedly being put on Killian by "Staudt," a reference to Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, one of Bush's early commanders. But the memo is dated Aug. 18, 1973, nearly a year and a half after Staudt retired from the Guard. Questioned about the discrepancy over the weekend, CBS officials said that Staudt was a "mythic figure" in the Guard who exercised influence from behind the scenes even after his retirement.

• Stylistic differences. To outsiders, how an officer wrote his name and rank or referred to his military unit may seem arcane and unimportant. Within the military, however, such details are regulated by rules and tradition, and can be of great significance. The CBS memos contain several stylistic examples at odds with standard Guard procedures, as reflected in authenticated documents.

In memos previously released by the Pentagon or the White House, Killian signed his rank "Lt Col" or "Lt Colonel, TexANG," in a single line after his name without periods. In the CBS memos, the "Lt Colonel" is on the next line, sometimes with a period but without the customary reference to TexANG, for Texas Air National Guard.

An ex-Guard commander, retired Col. Bobby W. Hodges, whom CBS originally cited as a key source in authenticating its documents, pointed to discrepancies in military abbreviations as evidence that the CBS memos are forgeries. The Guard, he said, never used the abbreviation "grp" for "group" or "OETR" for an officer evaluation review, as in the CBS documents. The correct terminology, he said, is "gp" and "OER."

In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.

Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.

On last night's "CBS Evening News," Rather said "60 Minutes" had done a "content analysis" of the memos and found, for example, that the date that Bush was suspended from flying -- Aug. 1, 1972 -- matched information in the documents. He also noted that USA Today had separately obtained another memo from 1972 in which Killian asked to be updated on Bush's flight certification status.

CBS executives have pointed to Matley as their lead expert on whether the memos are genuine, and included him in a "CBS Evening News" defense of the story Friday. Matley said he spent five to eight hours examining the memos. "I knew I could not prove them authentic just from my expertise," he said. "I can't say either way from my expertise, the narrow, narrow little field of my expertise."

In looking at the photocopies, he said, "I really felt we could not definitively say which font this is." But, he said, "I didn't see anything that would definitively tell me these are not authentic."

Asked about Matley's comments, CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: "In the end, the gist is that it's inconclusive. People are coming down on both sides, which is to be expected when you're dealing with copies of documents."

Questions about the CBS documents have grown to the point that they overshadow the allegations of favorable treatment toward Bush.

Prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh are insisting the documents are forged. New York Times columnist William Safire said yesterday that CBS should agree to an independent investigation. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, called on the network to apologize, saying: "The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it."
 
I dont believe these documents came from the kerry camp. They were expunged from a court order. Apparently they were included with the Late Lt.Cols personal effects. They certainly appear to be forgeries and I wouldnt be suprised if Dan was duped by the Bush Swiftvote vets.
 
manufanatic said:
I dont believe these documents came from the kerry camp. They were expunged from a court order. Apparently they were included with the Late Lt.Cols personal effects. They certainly appear to be forgeries and I wouldnt be suprised if Dan was duped by the Bush Swiftvote vets.
Click to expand...

what's your source on this expunged from a court order info?

as far as i know, cbs refuses to reveal who gave them these documents, but that there are indicators that is a person by the name of bill burkett, a former texas national guard officer who has cooperated with the democratic party before when he made allegations that he was present for some meeting where guard officials conspired to "sanitize" bush's records, a claim that has long since been thoroughly discredited.
 
Kevin ....aren't you going to look silly when it all comes out that what Rather and everyone else has been saying about bush being a deserter is true?

Especially, argueing on the side of a guy that is dishonest and maniacle as the day is long.
 
LABOB said:
Kevin ....aren't you going to look silly when it all comes out that what Rather and everyone else has been saying about bush being a deserter is true?

Especially, argueing on the side of a guy that is dishonest and maniacle as the day is long.
Click to expand...

i don't think so, no. i already think bush probably received some favoritism and string-pulling to get in the guard. he was honorably discharged and fulfilled his minimum flight requirements, even in the year in question.

none of this changes the fact that cbs and rather went with a story they had good reason to think was untrue and continue to stick by said story even as evidence mounts against. this is not a news organization in search of truth but one trying to protect its own ass.

if fox news ran an item about kerry's vietnam service with purported documented proof (that was later shown to be forged) that his purple hearts were not valid, i can only imagine the outcry on here. there would be calls for a full on investigation, how the documents obviously came from karl rove, etc. but since it happened to bush, there is no breach of journalism ethics. please.
 
LABOB said:
Kevin ....aren't you going to look silly when it all comes out that what Rather and everyone else has been saying about bush being a deserter is true?

Especially, argueing on the side of a guy that is dishonest and maniacle as the day is long.
Click to expand...

For someone who ceaselessly complains about the quality of journalism in the U.S., you seem not to care too much when Bush is the target.
 
Kevrockcity said:
i don't think so, no. i already think bush probably received some favoritism and string-pulling to get in the guard. he was honorably discharged and fulfilled his minimum flight requirements, even in the year in question.

none of this changes the fact that cbs and rather went with a story they had good reason to think was untrue and continue to stick by said story even as evidence mounts against. this is not a news organization in search of truth but one trying to protect its own ass.

if fox news ran an item about kerry's vietnam service with purported documented proof (that was later shown to be forged) that his purple hearts were not valid, i can only imagine the outcry on here. there would be calls for a full on investigation, how the documents obviously came from karl rove, etc. but since it happened to bush, there is no breach of journalism ethics. please.
Click to expand...


Here's a valid question....where the feck is the army of ppl that served with him? You think that someone that served for at least a year would have met a few ppl, likely more than the one or two that have been on the news....to say "yeah this is rediculous!....he did this and did that while serving"

Hey Kevin, how bout exercising a little common sense here.....?
 
mathiaslg said:
For someone who ceaselessly complains about the quality of journalism in the U.S., you seem not to care too much when Bush is the target.
Click to expand...

Damn straight...if it is bullshit....(I'm of the belief that the documentation is real...maybe not in the text that it's in...but in some way shape or form) all this CBS stuff mostly likely doesn't even scratch the surface.
 
How reliable do Americans consider CNN to be?

Interesting article ( excerpts ):
CBS revisits Bush's Guard memos
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/guard.memos.congress/index.html
Thursday, September 16, 2004 Posted: 0330 GMT (1130 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The growing controversy over President Bush's National Guard records, and whether some of the memos aired on CBS were fake, took another turn Wednesday night.

CBS News reported that the documents it first broadcast last week on "60 Minutes II" appear to be forgeries to the woman who would have typed the original memos in 1972 and 1973.

But Marian Carr Knox, a former Texas Air National Guard secretary, said she did type similar documents for her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

"I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct," Knox told CBS anchor Dan Rather.

Knox, 86, had previously told the same story to the Dallas Morning News in a report that was published Wednesday morning.

The newspaper said Knox "spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events."

She told the Morning News, "I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it."

In the memos, the author complained he was being pressured to "sugar coat" the future president's performance evaluations and that Bush failed to meet performance standards, including getting a required physical exam.

The author also wrote that Bush -- whose father was a Texas congressman at the time -- was "talking to someone upstairs" to get permission to transfer to the Alabama National Guard to work on a Senate campaign.

The legitimacy of the memos came under fire almost immediately as people posted doubts on a conservative Internet bulletin board. Soon, a number of document experts suggested the memos were not written on a typewriter in the 1970s but generated on a computer at a later date.

Both Killian's former wife and son also questioned their authenticity.

Rather defended his reporting on air Wednesday saying the controversy that followed last week's report did not challenge the "heart" of the story.

He said that a body of reporting, not just the memos in question, show the future president received preferential treatment to get into the Texas Air National Guard and then failed to fulfill his obligations while an airman.

Bush received an honorable discharge, which has not been in dispute.

Knox told Rather that Killian was "upset" that Bush did not obey his order to have a physical, and she said the young lieutenant showed disregard for the rules to a degree that irritated other pilots.

Knox said the information about Bush in the memos was familiar and that she had typed documents for Killian with similar complaints. She also said the colonel did keep private "cover your back" files.

But, she said she did not type the memos that were aired by CBS because they were written in a format she didn't use and there was Army terminology not used in the Air National Guard.

Knox suggested that the memos obtained by CBS News might have been recreations made by someone who had seen the other documents, although she conceded that was "supposition" on her part.

Earlier on Wednesday, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said the network "would not have put the report on the air if we did not believe in every aspect of it." However, he also said CBS News would try to resolve "unresolved issues" related to the report.

"Enough questions have been raised that we're going to redouble our efforts to answer those questions," Heyward said.

The response followed intense criticism from Republicans...
 
interesting piece (btw, i'm in love with dowd):

Pre-emptive Paranoia
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: September 16, 2004


Here's how bad off the Democrats are: They're cowering behind closed doors, whispering that if it should ever turn out that Republicans are behind this, it would be so exquisitely Machiavellian, so beyond what Democrats are capable of, they should just fold and concede the election now - before the Republicans have to go to the trouble of stealing it again.

There's no evidence - it's just a preposterous, paranoid fantasy at this point. But it speaks to the jitters of the Democrats that they're consumed with speculation about whether Karl Rove, the master of dirty tricks and surrogate sleaze, could have set up CBS in a diabolical pre-emptive strike to undermine damaging revelations about Bush 43's privileged status and vanishing act in the National Guard, and his odd refusal to take his required physical when ordered.

In this vast left-wing conspiracy theory, Mr. Rove takes real evidence on W.'s shirking and transfers it to documents doomed to be exposed as phony (thereby undermining the real goods), then funnels it through third parties to Dan Rather, Bush 41's nemesis on Iran-contra. A perfect bank shot.

The secretary for W.'s squadron commander in the Texas Guard told The Times that the information in the disputed memos is correct - it's just the memos that seem fake.

"It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together,'' said a lucid 86-year-old Marian Carr Knox, who was flown up to New York yesterday by beleaguered CBS News executives.

She told Mr. Rather that her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, wrote a "cover-your-back file,'' a "personal journal'' to keep a record about the politically connected Bush in his charge. She said the contents of that mirrored the CBS documents, but she said those documents were not on the right forms and contained Army terms rather than Air National Guard argot. She confirmed that young Bush had disobeyed a direct order from Colonel Killian to take a physical.

"It was a big no-no to not follow orders,'' she said, adding that the Bush scion's above-the-rules attitude caused some snickers and resentment among fellow officers.

Those who suspect Mr. Rove note that when he was Bill Clements's campaign strategist in a 1986 governor's race in Texas, he was accused of bugging his own office to distract from a debate, according to James Moore and Wayne Slater, authors of "Bush's Brain.'' They said it turned the election because after that, the Democrat could not get any attention.

Was the same scenario playing out yesterday evening on CNN? After a five-minute report on the CBS memo controversy, CNN spent about 30 seconds reporting that two more marines had been killed in Iraq.

House Republicans started clamoring for a Congressional inquiry into the documents used by "60 Minutes,'' saying it might be an attempt to manipulate the election. (Isn't that what the Democrats are scared the Republicans are doing?)

These same Republicans never wanted investigations into missing W.M.D., why Congress passed a Medicare bill based on faulty figures, Abu Ghraib or even whether those Swiftie guys were lying, for Pete's sake.

The Democratic paranoia is a measure of the intimidation the West Wing is wielding in a race where John Kerry can't seem to take advantage of any of the Bush administration's increasingly calamitous blunders.

The administration has been so dazzling in misleading the public with audacious, mendacious malarkey that the Democrats fear the Bushies are capable of any level of deceit.

Iraq is a vision of hell, and the Republicans act as if it's a model kitchen. The president and vice president brag about liberating Iraqis and reassure us that they are stopping terrorist violence at its source and inspiring democracy in the region by bringing it to blood-drenched Iraq.

But what they haven't mentioned is that they have known since July that their rosy scenarios are as bogus as their W.M.D. That's when the president received a national intelligence estimate that spelled out "a dark assessment of prospects" for stability and governance in Iraq in the next 18 months, as Douglas Jehl wrote in today's Times. Worst-case estimates include civil war or anarchy.

Unlike the president, the young men and women trying to stay alive in the unraveling chaos of Iraq can't count on their daddies to get them out of the line of fire.
 
LABOB said:
Here's a valid question....where the feck is the army of ppl that served with him? You think that someone that served for at least a year would have met a few ppl, likely more than the one or two that have been on the news....to say "yeah this is rediculous!....he did this and did that while serving"

Hey Kevin, how bout exercising a little common sense here.....?
Click to expand...

read the last paragraph of my intitial post. bush guard service has been done to death. i've said he probably got preferential treatent - most people i'm sure believe that. he also probably met the minimum flight requirements. but that isn't what's at issue here.

cbs and 60 minutes, who claim to be reputable, unbiased news sources, presented documents which they should have known were forged as real. they created a "news" story around evidence that does not exist. now, despite basically every document expert saying that these memos are forged, they still won't issue a retraction or an apology. i'm sorry, but this is an obvious breach of ethics.

note: i don't want to hear "who's taking responsiiblity for iraq, where's bush's accountability, blah blah blah." again, that is a completely separate issue. we're talking about the standards of journalism - is it okay now to "plant evidence" if you know the criminal is guilty?
 
kkcbl said:
How reliable do Americans consider CNN to be?

Interesting article ( excerpts ):
CBS revisits Bush's Guard memos
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/guard.memos.congress/index.html
Thursday, September 16, 2004 Posted: 0330 GMT (1130 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The growing controversy over President Bush's National Guard records, and whether some of the memos aired on CBS were fake, took another turn Wednesday night.

CBS News reported that the documents it first broadcast last week on "60 Minutes II" appear to be forgeries to the woman who would have typed the original memos in 1972 and 1973.

But Marian Carr Knox, a former Texas Air National Guard secretary, said she did type similar documents for her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

"I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct," Knox told CBS anchor Dan Rather.

Knox, 86, had previously told the same story to the Dallas Morning News in a report that was published Wednesday morning.

The newspaper said Knox "spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events."

She told the Morning News, "I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it."

In the memos, the author complained he was being pressured to "sugar coat" the future president's performance evaluations and that Bush failed to meet performance standards, including getting a required physical exam.

The author also wrote that Bush -- whose father was a Texas congressman at the time -- was "talking to someone upstairs" to get permission to transfer to the Alabama National Guard to work on a Senate campaign.

The legitimacy of the memos came under fire almost immediately as people posted doubts on a conservative Internet bulletin board. Soon, a number of document experts suggested the memos were not written on a typewriter in the 1970s but generated on a computer at a later date.

Both Killian's former wife and son also questioned their authenticity.

Rather defended his reporting on air Wednesday saying the controversy that followed last week's report did not challenge the "heart" of the story.

He said that a body of reporting, not just the memos in question, show the future president received preferential treatment to get into the Texas Air National Guard and then failed to fulfill his obligations while an airman.

Bush received an honorable discharge, which has not been in dispute.

Knox told Rather that Killian was "upset" that Bush did not obey his order to have a physical, and she said the young lieutenant showed disregard for the rules to a degree that irritated other pilots.

Knox said the information about Bush in the memos was familiar and that she had typed documents for Killian with similar complaints. She also said the colonel did keep private "cover your back" files.

But, she said she did not type the memos that were aired by CBS because they were written in a format she didn't use and there was Army terminology not used in the Air National Guard.

Knox suggested that the memos obtained by CBS News might have been recreations made by someone who had seen the other documents, although she conceded that was "supposition" on her part.

Earlier on Wednesday, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said the network "would not have put the report on the air if we did not believe in every aspect of it." However, he also said CBS News would try to resolve "unresolved issues" related to the report.

"Enough questions have been raised that we're going to redouble our efforts to answer those questions," Heyward said.

The response followed intense criticism from Republicans...
Click to expand...

if cbs felt that knox, a registered democrat, had information that was so powerful and compelling, they should have had her on the original program saying "my former boss was upset at bush for missing a physical and might have written correspondence about it," not presented forged documents, memos that experts had expressed their shortcoming about, as real. why didn't rather ask this secretary whether they had this one ludicrously expensive typewriter in her office - wouldn't this have solved the mystery once and for all? i'm sure you, as well i, know why - he didn't want to know the answer.

the extent to which cbs is now going to try to cover their asses is truly alarming. cbs should have just apologized and issued a retraction and it would have been done with. instead, people are going to get fired.
 
LABOB said:
Damn straight...if it is bullshit....(I'm of the belief that the documentation is real...maybe not in the text that it's in...but in some way shape or form) all this CBS stuff mostly likely doesn't even scratch the surface.
Click to expand...

do you even realize what a bad move politically this was? now, no one is even talking about the substance of the report, just whether the documents are fake or not. cbs, in their rush to get the hot story (and maybe score some political points) have taken a taken a feck-up like bush and made him into a victim. congratulations, cbs. great job.
 
LABOB said:
Damn straight...if it is bullshit....(I'm of the belief that the documentation is real...maybe not in the text that it's in...but in some way shape or form) all this CBS stuff mostly likely doesn't even scratch the surface.
Click to expand...

For god's sake Bob, listen to yourself.

Bush's service, whatever was involved, isn't worth the time of day to actually forge documents over. I know it may be fashionable to do so--so as to try to get back at Dubya for the Republican attack ads at Kerry. Yet what does it accomplish? Other than, of course, further distracting attention away from real policy issues.

Kerry, and the Dem's, would be better off pointing out substantive flaws with the Bush Presidency--there are a hell of a lot of them. If they can't then forward a better alternative, Kerry doesn't deserve to take office.
 
LABOB said:
Ya know what....that's how Gore handled this stuff....just let it slide.

Not this time........I hope they drag this fecker through the mud this time around. Also, hoping his father gets splashed with it too. :p
Click to expand...

so you're basically for anything, no matter how grossly unethical, as long as it hurts bush politically. very helpful to know - when i read your posts in the future, i shall keep in mind that will simply take the side of an argument that is most critical of bush, no matter how ridiculous that side is. thanks for clarifying.
 
LABOB said:
Ya know what....that's how Gore handled this stuff....just let it slide.

Not this time........I hope they drag this fecker through the mud this time around. Also, hoping his father gets splashed with it too. :p
Click to expand...
And that is why I think Kerry was stupidly naive & so out-of-touch with the common 'folk' when he insisted that Democrat speakers at their Covention refrain from undue criticism & personal attacks on Bush.

The result?

The Democrat Covention turned out to be a wet squid & he did not move up the polls post-Covention.

Everyone else saw it coming that Bush & Co will not extend the same courtesy to him, given their track-record of smears, lies, underhand deals, & downright blatant lie-in-your-face policies!

And didn't he get a whopping at the polls post-GOP's Orgy of Kerry-bashing!

Doesn't Kerry know that the common folk likes nothing more than pats on the head, sex, scandals, gossips, mud-slinging, cowboys & injuns, downfalls of the rich & famous, Rambo, Dirty Harry, reality shows, WWEs, etc?

Bush & Co feeds the frenzy & in return, Bush gets rewarded with 4 more years of the same - never mind the truth, the economy, jobs, the environment, foreign relations, human rights, dead Americans, Iraqis, Iranians, etc.

Kerry should do well to observe the 'real' needs of those ordinary folks that Bush so understands & more:

If ever so occasionally pushed to a corner to answer damning charges or the oh-so-difficult questions which everyone else seems to understand, just do the following: 1. Stare & ignore it or walk away 2. Answer the question with a totally irrelevant & unrelated speech, not forgetting to praise oneself in the process 3.Say 'so-&-so is wrong/guilty/evil etc not because of any evidence but because I SAID SO' & smirk 4. If the shit hits the fan, point the finger of blame to someone/everyone/anyone else 5. If things turn out well, claim all credit 6. crack corny jokes, especially about the subject matter at hand 7. if everything else fails, say 'God/Jesus told/ordered me so' or 'God bless you!'

However, to show that he was a better man & wouldn't stoop to the level of Bush & Co, Kerry could have allowed Bush-bashing based on facts & the present Admin's awful track record on almost everything, with so much material available, something he is now finally realising - the question is whether his awakening is too late or that whether the common folk would listen?
 
kkcbl said:
And that is why I think Kerry was stupidly naive & so out-of-touch with the common 'folk' when he insisted that Democrat speakers at their Covention refrain from undue criticism & personal attacks on Bush.

The result?

The Democrat Covention turned out to be a wet squid & he did not move up the polls post-Covention.

Everyone else saw it coming that Bush & Co will not extend the same courtesy to him, given their track-record of smears, lies, underhand deals, & downright blatant lie-in-your-face policies!

And didn't he get a whopping at the polls post-GOP's Orgy of Kerry-bashing!

Doesn't Kerry know that the common folk likes nothing more than pats on the head, sex, scandals, gossips, mud-slinging, cowboys & injuns, downfalls of the rich & famous, Rambo, Dirty Harry, reality shows, WWEs, etc?

Bush & Co feeds the frenzy & in return, Bush gets rewarded with 4 more years of the same - never mind the truth, the economy, jobs, the environment, foreign relations, human rights, dead Americans, Iraqis, Iranians, etc.

Kerry should do well to observe the 'real' needs of those ordinary folks that Bush so understands & more:

If ever so occasionally pushed to a corner to answer damning charges or the oh-so-difficult questions which everyone else seems to understand, just do the following: 1. Stare & ignore it or walk away 2. Answer the question with a totally irrelevant & unrelated speech, not forgetting to praise oneself in the process 3.Say 'so-&-so is wrong/guilty/evil etc not because of any evidence but because I SAID SO' & smirk 4. If the shit hits the fan, point the finger of blame to someone/everyone/anyone else 5. If things turn out well, claim all credit 6. crack corny jokes, especially about the subject matter at hand 7. if everything else fails, say 'God/Jesus told/ordered me so' or 'God bless you!'

However, to show that he was a better man & wouldn't stoop to the level of Bush & Co, Kerry could have allowed Bush-bashing based on facts & the present Admin's awful track record on almost everything, with so much material available, something he is now finally realising - the question is whether his awakening is too late or that whether the common folk would listen?
Click to expand...

such contempt you have for "the common folk."

the next time you criticize bush (a fair criticism, i might add) of evading questions, you should remember that john kerry has not had a press conference in close to 40 days. for a man running for president with less than two months to go before the election, a guy falling behind in the polls, this is a shockingly large gap. the manner in which his campaign has been a joke and has nothing to do with your apparent conception of "common folk." john kerry is not getting his message out there. end of story.
 
kkcbl said:
Doesn't Kerry know that the common folk likes nothing more than pats on the head, sex, scandals, gossips, mud-slinging, cowboys & injuns, downfalls of the rich & famous, Rambo, Dirty Harry, reality shows, WWEs, etc?
Click to expand...

No offense kkcbl, but what the feck do you know about the American "common folk?"
 
Now I'll just make my point, yes of course it looks like the documents are fakes but why if they were faked did the faker apparently use 21st century technology to make a document from the early seventies?...

Now I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw but if I was doing it and I wanted to convince anyone then I'd definitely use an old typewriter...

It's so obvious that I'm absolutely certain that there is more to this than meets the eye... :cool: ...
 
Martin Henry said:
Now I'll just make my point, yes of course it looks like the documents are fakes but why if they were faked did the faker apparently use 21st century technology to make a document from the early seventies?...

Now I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw but if I was doing it and I wanted to convince anyone then I'd definitely use an old typewriter...

It's so obvious that I'm absolutely certain that there is more to this than meets the eye... :cool: ...
Click to expand...

bill burkett, if indeed he is responsible, is certainly no mensa candidate. some of his previous tinfoil hat allegation against bush and his service have been pretty laughable - walking in on secret meetings, etc. i think it's pretty clear that cbs and 60 minutes really wanted the documents to be authentic and thus overlooked quite a number of obvious indicators that should have given them pause. gallop poll now has bush up 13 points - i'd have to think some of this bump is because of this business. good job, dan rather.
 
Kevrockcity said:
such contempt you have for "the common folk."

the next time you criticize bush (a fair criticism, i might add) of evading questions, you should remember that john kerry has not had a press conference in close to 40 days. for a man running for president with less than two months to go before the election, a guy falling behind in the polls, this is a shockingly large gap. the manner in which his campaign has been a joke and has nothing to do with your apparent conception of "common folk." john kerry is not getting his message out there. end of story.
Click to expand...
Oh, but I do agree wth you & have stated so that Kerry's not doing himself any favour with his weak, seemingly waffling campaign, & that he, inspite of Bush, has only himself to blame when he loses in November!

But by the mere fact that he's not been very effective should not hide the fact that Bush has been exposed sufficiently for all to see that he cannot be trusted & has failed the US & the world badly on the military, security & economic front & when he's re-elected in November, shouldn't it be a fair assessment that he had the consensus of the majority of voting Americans & therefore assume thy want him & approve his policies, or lack thereof, for 4 more years?

Or is there a hint of admission that democracy, the bastion of good & sensible governance, can fcuk up ever so badly?;)
 
mathiaslg said:
No offense kkcbl, but what the feck do you know about the American "common folk?"
Click to expand...
Enough to frighten the shit out of me that they're sufficient enough out there to carry Bush for 4 more years!;)

Do you have an alternative view of them that perhaps you can educate me on?:angel:

ps - I apologise for not being politically correct for my perceived generalisation but am I any worse than, for instance, you guys condemning Muslims for perceived insufficient outcry on Western hit atrocities?

Can the same 'what the feck do you know about muslims' be applied?:wenger:
 
kkcbl said:
Enough to frighten the shit out of me that they're sufficient enough out there to carry Bush for 4 more years!;)

Do you have an alternative view of them that perhaps you can educate me on?:angel:

ps - I apologise for not being politically correct for my perceived generalisation but am I any worse than, for instance, you guys condemning Muslims for perceived insufficient outcry on Western hit atrocities?

Can the same 'what the feck do you know about muslims' be applied?:wenger:
Click to expand...

I find it ironic that you are terrified of the values of "Common American Folk" that bring about their support of President Bush but aren't at all concerned about the lack of Muslim condemnation of Islamic terrorism.

And just to let you know, I know a hell of a lot more about Islam than you know about "Common American Folk."
 
I was going to start a new thread on this....but I don't really care to get much of a response to this post....just a feeling I have on the facts of who CBS is and how all this stuff has come about with Rather and Bush....

Firstly, we need to have a close look at who CBS is........the owner is an extreemly right-wing conservative Cristian (owner of Viacom)

Dan Rather, himself admitted that he'd been working on this story for at least 4 years since the last Pres. election. (Not just something that fell into his lap as the media portrays it to be)

There are too many ppl btwn Sumner Redstone and Dan Rather that had to have said....or should have said ....NO! this is going to cause too many problems even if the core of the story is based in fact.

Dan Rather is a 25 year veteran of broadcast news and it is my guess that the RNC and/or Sumner Redstone (but deffinately, Sumner) somehow bribed Dan Rather to take the fall for George Bush for sabotage Kerry.

It's just way too obvious.........first it's the boob....wich crushed so many independent media companies....thus being swallowed up by big guys like Sumner.....now this....and the fine of a half million dollars....what a joke...they get that in a one minute comercial during a Super Bowl. :smirk:
 
LABOB said:
There are too many ppl btwn Sumner Redstone and Dan Rather that had to have said....or should have said ....NO! this is going to cause too many problems even if the core of the story is based in fact.

Dan Rather is a 25 year veteran of broadcast news and it is my guess that the RNC and/or Sumner Redstone (but deffinately, Sumner) somehow bribed Dan Rather to take the fall for George Bush for sabotage Kerry.

It's just way too obvious.........first it's the boob....wich crushed so many independent media companies....thus being swallowed up by big guys like Sumner.....now this....and the fine of a half million dollars....what a joke...they get that in a one minute comercial during a Super Bowl. :smirk:
Click to expand...

Bob, you have completely lost your mind.
 
LABOB said:
Nope, I haven't.

Here's a good question....why hasn't Sumner Redstone called for Rather's head?

Most likely because he put him up to it. Duh!
Click to expand...

Did you come up with this conspiracy by yourself, or did you get this from some website?
 
Rather should fall on his sword - he would be demanding it from another news reader.
 
LABOB said:
Nope, I haven't.

Here's a good question....why hasn't Sumner Redstone called for Rather's head?

Most likely because he put him up to it. Duh!
Click to expand...
Nah. Karl Rove ginned this up on his office computer and sent it to Rather anonymously. Come on, be a REAL conspiracy theorist! ;)
 
DEB said:
Nah. Karl Rove ginned this up on his office computer and sent it to Rather anonymously. Come on, be a REAL conspiracy theorist! ;)
Click to expand...


I'm of the belief that nothing this big happens by mistake on the major networks.....there is too much at stake.

Especially, allegations against the President of the United States of America....come'on you be REAL........as if this story wasn't discussed in front of the Viacom board of directors...or at least the CBS Board....where there would have been at least a few ppl from the Viacom Board?

It's like Bush not knowing that the WMD information wasn't legit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.