After reading some stuff on Ace of Spades and Hobbs I believe I know the angle here. This was all meant to connect up to a smear of bush as a cokehead. This rumor as been around a long time and kitty kelly book came out within days of this hack job. The Dems saw the dui charge torpedo bush last election aand are oging after the same thing.

Read the radio show thing and notice the drug test angle this guy tried to insinuate. This is speculation but its the only sane polictical strategy I have heard so far.

er by radio thing I mean check out hobbs online :)

"If you can’t deny the information, then attack and seek to destroy the credibility of the messenger, the bearer of the information. And in this case, it’s change the subject from the truth of the information to the truth of the documents."

Dan Rather is a post-modernist? Who knew?

- As the third deadline for the "CBS epic press conference" comes and goes if you listen carefully you can hear the tick tock theme of jeopardy playing in the background.

Alex Treebeck waits for the CBS contestants ( the Lawyers and Management ) to wrestle each other to the floor...Spin their individual versions of the "truth" and scribble "What is Bullshit" on their light boards...

"If you can't deny the information..."
but we can, and have, denied the information.

Trying to force people to respond to trumped up charges is a page right out of McCarthy. The tactics were wrong then and they're wrong now.

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that it's Dan Rather questioning "un-American activities" rather than being questioned.

I agree with NRO's analysis that Congress should stay out of this (for now). The only value might be that the experts would have to testify under oath.

"Answer the question - did you beat your wife?" Dan Rather was asking a direct question to President George W. Bush.

"I say that with respect," he added. The question comes from memos that have come under attack as being highly questionable. Among other issues, as of the dates shown on the memos, Bush wasn't married. However, CBS maintains that Bush was intending to get married at the time, so they believe the memos are essentially correct.

Sooo, let me get this straight. You got a document that is obviously a fake and has slanderous material in it, but the fact that it is fake is not relavant to the content? Huh? So this is the main stream media in all its glory. "WE KNOW THE TRUTH. THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT PROVE IT WITH WRITEN WORD, SPOKEN WORD, OR WITNESSED ACTS AND DEEDS IS OF NO CONCERN TO YOU. BELIEVE WHAT WE TELL YOU."

What's really happening here is the old liberal mind-think. Bush is a liar and a drunk and a dope and he cheats. Since this is a known, it's not false to confab a document that says all these things. It's ok to help make the argument pursuasive to those who still hold on to the idea that Bush is a normal decent guy. So the MSM is actually do us a favor by making the story easier for them to tell so that they can let us all know the truth.

Right. Isn't this straight out of "Propoganda for Idiots" or something?

What an arogant fool.

Does any sane person still believe this documents are legitimate?

I also think the whole "well we should be discussing what is in the documents, not their validity" is a huge smokescreen. What is the point in discussing contents of forged documents?

The point in discussing forged documents? Because they are true. Since they are true it doesn't matter that they are forgeries. Nevermind that they were used as evidence that the premise is true, we know that the premise is true so we don't need to prove the forgeries are real. Since we know they are true it just furhter proves bush is bad. See? Boy am I dizzy from going in circles.

I'm being facetious of course.

I've fisked Rather's interview here:
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/006193.php

from TNR.com:

Let's start by taking as a given what conservatives have long assumed about Dan Rather: that he's a partisan Democrat whose political beliefs infect his journalism. Under these circumstances, Rather could be guilty of a particular kind of bias--namely, not vetting sources that supported his inclinations as closely as he would have vetted sources that contradicted them. At worst, Rather is guilty of sloppily fact-checking the veracity of forged documents because of his political views--and of therefore reporting lies as truth.

If this last offense sounds familiar, it's because the right-wing media does it all the time. In February 2004, for instance, Fox News broadcasters Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, and John Gibson all showed a photo of John Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda on a podium at an anti-Vietnam War rally in the 1970s. It turns out the photo was fake. Did hordes of media critics demand retractions from Hume, Hannity, and Gibson? Of course not. As a result, it seems likely that plenty of voters continue to believe the picture was real. Another example: Hannity, on May 18, said, "The only thing [John Kerry has] been consistent about in his entire career is raising taxes, because he supported tax increases 350 times." Hannity was using a number produced by the Bush campaign that was arrived at by allowing votes against tax cuts to count as support of a tax increase, and by double-, triple-, or quadruple-counting tax votes in budget bills with multiple parts. Hannity, of course, declined to present this contextual information.

Well, I have a memo in which Dan Rather promises to pay me 1.5 million dollars. I also have someone willing to say the signature appears authentic. Now the point is not whether the document is authentic, but when will Dan pay me my money?

TNR.com:

Why did Fox News get away with presenting a forgery? Why does Hannity get away with recycling Bush talking points that don't stand up to any measure of intellectual honesty? Because Fox reporters hide behind the conceit that they are opinion journalists, and media critics therefore hold them to a lower standard--as if being in the business of opinion journalism frees Fox from the obligation to deal in facts.

And that's why Fox's particular brand of bias is so much more dangerous than Rather's: The (unfortunate) conventions of opinion journalism don't demand that they stick scrupulously to truth; nor are they expected to apologize when they report blatant falsehoods. And so the record as reported by Fox News goes uncorrected in the public's mind, and talking points enter our discourse with a pretense of truth. Let's concede, for argument's sake, that most Fox viewers know they are watching opinion journalism. Does this really lessen their expectation that the opinions presented will be based on evidence that is basically true? Of course not. Viewers watching "60 Minutes," of course, also expect that the reporting they see is true. The difference is that viewers of "60 Minutes" may soon hear a correction. And even if CBS doesn't offer a correction, media critics will let Americans know if they were entitled to one.

I CAN'T BELIEVE NO ONE SEES THE PROBLEM WITH THE "it's the content that matters" SWISS CHEESE HOLED ARGUMENT.

When is CBS going to do a new expose on Hitler, since "it's not the Hitler Diaries documents that matters, it's what the Diaries REPRESENT that should be considered. Bla bla bla a pillar of truth I am."

Sheesh. When there's this much swiss cheese, you're not just imagining that you smell a rat.

Does the faked photo mean that Kerry and Fonda didn't really appear at rallies together. No - we have plenty of legitimate photos and contemporaneous accounts that support the fact that they were "fellow-travelers" as peace-niks.

Does the exaggeration of the tax-hike number mean that Kerry didn't vote for tax hikes/against tax cuts? No - his record as a tax-and-spend (except for defense) liberal is well documented.

The Rather memos were created from thin air precisely because there isn't any proof of the allegations he is bringing against Bush. That's what makes them especially onerous.

ed -

I think TNR made a bad analogy. I watched Brit Hume retract the veracity of that photo and say that it was a pshop. I remember it distinctly.

What Fox did in that case is more like what the Boston Globe did in this case - put out a deceptive piece of info on page 1 and then retract it on page 2.

It sucks and isn't right, but it's within standard operating procedure for journalism.

CBS is stonewalling bizarrely and crazily.

And it actually scares me, in this case.

Wylie, according to your logic re fake Fonda photo with Kerry, then the CBS forged document is not relevant as there exist MANY more documents (or lack thereof) showing Bush's delinquency in military service. Thanks for that.
And your last statement (re no proof) is ludicrous. It's out there, you just choose to not see/find it. But normally right-wingers just ignore that part anyway, so at least kudos to nice try (?).

Wylie, according to your logic re fake Fonda photo with Kerry, then the CBS forged document is not relevant as there exist MANY more documents (or lack thereof) showing Bush's delinquency in military service. Thanks for that.
And your last statement (re no proof) is ludicrous. It's out there, you just choose to not see/find it. But normally right-wingers just ignore that part anyway, so at least kudos to nice try (?).

Ed,

Theres a big difference here. Let me explain...

John Kerry and Jane Fonda DID work in concert, if not together, on the same issues. It is a known. It is not inconcievable that there would be a picture of the two of them together. I believe Fox acted in good faith.

In terms of John Kerry raising taxes, sure. Political spin in a political election year. OK. But the Kerry story is true. You can make an argument that a vote against a lower tax rate is vote for higher taxes if you are in the minority. It's a stretch, but the basic point is that true John Kerry does consistantly vote for higher taxes and opppose lowering of taxes. So it's only 95 times and not 300. OK. I don't see how you can compare that to the whole sale fabrication of documentation to make a point that is plain and simple, NOT TRUE. There is no basis for any of the aligations. Period. You can say there is because you believe there is, but any rendition of the facts will lead you to believe there is no basis for believing in the notion that Bush was AWOL. he completed his service, earned his points, and was discharged.

One last point. What Fox may have done is one thing. If it was not true, so be it. It wasn't done with a host of experts saying not to show it or say it. What CBS is doing is nothing more than a deliberate smear. And whoever created these documents think nothing of smearing Lt. Col. Killian as some spinless officer that couldn't stand the heat, so he took the easy way out. He was, by all accounts, a good officer and a decent guy. I don't see Fox throwing innocents into the fire to stir up smoke to prove a basless point, one that THEY are trying to perpetrate.

Sorry, I don't buy your point of view.

I think that ed is right in that arguing that the photo was ok because its spirit was proven is WRONG.

It was false information, period. That being said, it was an error, and Fox retracted.

In CBS's case, not only is the fakery mich more outrageous and damaging, but they aren't taking responsibility for providing the truth.

re "Sorry, I don't buy your point of view."

Was there a chance you would? Folly.

As for "any rendition of the facts will lead you to believe there is no basis for believing in the notion that Bush was AWOL, I've read MUCH of the facts re this (have you?) -- just go to U.S. News for the latest (hardly a lefty publication). Or better yet send me the so-called "facts" exonerating Bush on this matter (post the links here).... I await them (not holding my breath).

When CBS tells the truth *about the documents*, then they can start yammering about truth.

Right now they are scamming the public holing out fakes as the real deal.

holding. arrrrgh

Ed,

No need for the sarcasm "holding breath" routine. You risk undermining you point by your attitude.

Yes, I read much, as you do. And I will buy your point if you make a good one.

I think any further discussion is pointless though. "send me the so-called "facts" exonerating Bush"...? Exonerating? Guilty before proven incocent? Sorry, that ain't how I measure a storyline. There may be holes in the record of Bush's career in the TANG, after 30 years what did you expect? But I believe they are explainable compared to others in the guard of that time. You on the other hand believe that since Bush must be hiding something, you will not change your mind until you see, what, a picture of him NOT trying to influence someone? There just is no story here. I have read the attempts to make something of this. It does not fit. That's all. If you cannot see that, there is no amount of proof that will change your mind.

BTW, what do you think of the smearing of the otherwise decent Lt. Col. Killian? Seems that in order to make Bush a bad guy, they have to sully a man who served his country well. Now his family has to endure the attacks against their 20 year passed on loved one. I don't care what you think or I think about Bush. THAT is just plain wrong, and not condeming these fake documents is just plain low.

"...the CBS forged document is not relevant as there exist MANY more documents (or lack thereof) showing Bush's delinquency in military service."

If there were "many" documents showing "delinquency in military service", then ipso facto there would be no need for the forgeries. Why would Rather and CBS essentially scuttle their reputations over obvious forgeries if there were plenty of other documents out there that prove the points they are making? Makes no sense.

BTW, do you think this now-famous pic is PhotoShopped?

Rather Quote:

With respect: answer the questions. We’ve heard what you have to say about the documents and what you’ve said and what your surrogates have said, but for the moment, answer the questions. I say that with respect. They’d be a lot stronger in their campaign if they did do that.

Counterpoint:

With respect, Senator Kerry, answer the questions. We’ve heard you say you are a hero and what your surrogates have said, but for the moment, answer the questions. I say that with respect. You’d be a lot stronger in your campaign if you did that.

Rather Quote:

"It’s never been fully, completely denied by the Bush-Cheney campaign or even the White House that he was suspended for meeting the standards of the Air Force or that he didn’t show up for a physical," he said. "The longer we go without a denial of such things—this story is true."

Counterpoint:

It’s never been fully, completely denied by the Kerry-Edwards campaign or even Kerry himself that he wrote exaggerated or false reports to support his application for Purple Heart awards to effectuate an early release from serving in Viet Nam. "The longer we go without a denial of such things—this story is true."

Rather Quote:

"I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of the story," he said. "If you can’t deny the information, then attack and seek to destroy the credibility of the messenger, the bearer of the information. And in this case, it’s change the subject from the truth of the information to the truth of the documents.

Counterpoint:

I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward Senator Kerry, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the Swift Boat Vets because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of their story. If you can’t deny the story, then attack and seek to destroy the credibility of the messengers, the bearer of the information. And in this case, it’s change the subject from the truth of the information to the integrity of the SBV’s.

Rather Quote:

"Look, we have accumulated a body of information based on some long reporting that lays out a different picture of then Lieutenant Bush’s service, and we now have documents which to our own satisfaction we believe to be authentic, we believe to be true …. These are unpleasant truths. But they are truths. There was and is no joy in reporting them. But part of what reporters are supposed to do is ask questions, dig for facts and, when truths are found, share them with the public and, when called upon to do so, speak truth to power. This we did."

Counterpoint:

Look, we have accumulated a body of information based on some overwhelming eye-witness reports that lays out a different picture of then Lieutenant Kerry’s service, and we now have documents which to our own satisfaction we believe to be authentic, we believe to be true…. These are unpleasant truths. But they are truths. There was and is no joy in reporting them. But part of what reporters are supposed to do is ask questions, dig for facts and, when truths are found, share them with the public and, when called upon to do so, speak truth to ambition. This we’ve done.

"You can make an argument that a vote against a lower tax rate is vote for higher taxes if you are in the minority."

I think this can be comparable to claims made about budget cuts, when a budget item is increased by a lower percentage than was expected. You see this argument all the time in elections. Is it truthful? Not really, but depending on perspective it isn't totally wrong either.

As for this story, I would still like to know who those documents came from, until then I will take a pass on considering the contents. And to be honest I really don't think most people care about what Bush did in the guard 30 years ago, I think the people this really matters to are the people who probably aren't going to vote for him anyway.