Rather dumb
Find a Conversation
Rather dumb
| Mon, 09-20-2004 - 1:42pm |
Dan Rather just apologized for using FAKE documents to attempt to slander the reputation of our sitting president in wartime in an attempt to sway the election. Maybe he didn't use those words, but that's the way it shakes out.
He did NOT say that he and CBS were going to persue and expose the perpetrators of this act. Wonder why not? Their credibility is shot. Their only hope at restoring ANY credibility in the future would be to turn on their source and rat him out. Unless, CBS is the source... Or John Kerry's campaign...
The only way I could see CBS recovering from this would be to fire EVERYONE on the CBS Evening News and start over.

Pages
Who needs proof?
Dan Rather didn't, and I'll bet there are plenty of Kerry supporters who will have tuned out their lame excuse for an apology. It was very Clintonesque, "apologizing" and then attacking Republicans in the same statement.
Nice job, Metrochick, now you're getting the hang of it. After all, that stinky ol' Constitution needed a rewrite anyway.
Notice how these major revision attempts only work for us as along as we've got the AP on our side!
" 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."
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12613
(as a side note - the same article linked to above confirms that Killian's secretary did have a superscript TH key on one of her typewriters, so the freepers managed to be right even though their wild assumptions were dead wrong.)
"The former secretary to a Texas Air National Guard officer who purportedly wrote memos critical of President Bush's pilot service said Tuesday that the documents are forgeries but they appear to reflect memos her boss wrote and kept in a locked desk drawer.
Marian Carr Knox told the Dallas Morning News after viewing copies of the disputed memos, "These are not real," and that "the information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-14-memos-forgeries_x.htm
I'm not actually but felt that the treason charge was going overboard.
<>
That's most likely the true story and journalists do it all the time. It was the conviction that someone felt that they knew what the motivation was behind it.
Strangely enough, I just watched All the President's Men this weekend (I'd seen it years ago). There were some questionable journalistic practices in that one as well. I suppose one could argue that Woodward and Bernstein were committing treason as well.
It seems that Rather is going to pay the price for his lack of follow-up anyhow unless some people would like to see him lynched for his act of treason rahter than see him lose his credibility.....something that is very important for a journalist at his level.
Actually, the treason charge is not going overboard. Have you heard the news this morning? CBS put Lockhart in touch with Burke....the guy behind the memos. Know who Lockhart is? One of the senior advisors on the Kerry campaign. Just saw Lockhart interviewed live.... He was shifty, sweating, fidgety, couldn't answer a direct question with a direct answer. Kept putting the "big bad white house" spin on every answer. It was really quite pathetic.
Where are they then. If they existed, they would be in President Bush's military file, which they are not, or they would be in Killians files, which they are not.
Carr is a known Kerry supporter, and has a great dislike for Bush, so what she says must be taken with a grain of salt, since there is no paperwork to back up what she says. If you want to play the game of he said she said, the entire Killian family, along with several others that were friends of Lt Col Killian as well as men who served with Killian are set to vouch for what the Killian family have said, and that Lt Col Killian liked George Bush.
Unless the supposed real documents are even uncovered, (if they even exist) then we will never know the truth, and the die hard Kerry supporters will believe this as fact, even without any evidence to support it.
I don't think you can discount first hand information from someone just because they're a "known Kerry supporter." Would you prefer they secretly supported Kerry? You're argument's also a bit circular - if Knox has a "great dislike for Bush" it's probably based in the way she saw him shirk his duty and get away with it. Which in your opinion disqualifies her from speaking about it. That means we've got to find someone who knows Bush shirked his duty, but is a known Bush supporter, who really likes him and who's willing to go on TV and call him a liar. Good luck.
You are assuming...that's all. Don't think i need to point out what assume means.
Remember, when he ran against Ann Richards for Governor the first time, she brought all of this up then, and nothing came of it. Gore (or I should say the Democrats) brought it up in 2000 and nothing came of it. They (mainly McAullife) are beating a dead, and severely decomposing horse on this one.
Pages