Asked and Answered!

Peter Ames Carlin in The Oregonian on Tuesday Sept. 21, 2004 is trying to tell us that 'Rather-gate' is not personal, it was just business. It was all about the "never-ending quest for the Get".

"What's more( he adds), the fundamental gist of the CBS story -- that Bush used his father's influence to secure a spot in the Texas National Guard, failed to take a required physical in the summer of 1972 and can't account for his service between then and the summer of 1973 -- remains unchallenged. In fact, a lengthy, deeply sourced story in Monday's New York Times confirmed all that and more"

Peter maybe you should rely less on the NYT and reread Byron Yorks devastation of this piece of Urban Legend. Bush’s National Guard years Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts By Byron York from The Hill

Basically, what Carlin is saying is that when you "know" the story is true, but you don't have the facts, it is ok to tell the story anyway. NO CARLIN, IT WASN'T BUSINESS.IT WAS PERSONAL!

PS you can email carlin at: [email protected]

GWB was a party boy who got special treatment? Stop the presses!

CBS is working directly with the Kerry campaign to influence a Presidential campaign.

I can't believe were talking about this.

I didn't care when the story originally aired, and I don't care now that CBS is shown to be incompetent.

There is another more important war going on right now, which is directly affecting Americans, and no one seems to care. Its mindboggling.

But that's not what this post is about. There are other posts about the war, eg "Oregon Troops Say Support Kerry so we can get outta this hellhole"

Justin, how do you get "nobody cares about the war" from the fact that people are interested in this matter? It's a non-sequitur. You'd just rather not dwell on this outrageous instance of bias on the part of a major news organization.

As for Jack Bogdanski's original post, I also find it amusing that the NYT even needs to pursue this story at this point (along with CBS and the Kerry campaign, coincidentally) after this was beaten to death during the last presidential election cycle. But now Jack derides "right-wingers" in a "state of acute arousal" over something that happened just over a week ago. During that time the perpetrators and/or facilitators of a serious fraud refused to respond credibly and "authentically," if you like, to critics -- thereby prolonging the immediacy of the story and leading to reasonable suspicions that there was something deeper going on.

I don't blame passionate Democrats for wanting to steer clear of this story, but spare us the sanctimonious diversionary plays and the supercillious comments. If the shoe were on the other foot, we'd be hearing how Josef Goebbels used these tactics in 1938, how Fox News (or whoever) was utterly discredited, how Brit Hume's head must roll, how charges should be brought over the forging of government documents, etc., etc.

Bush's activity in the TANG is indeed a passe matter -- if the worst accusations were true, it would have little effect on voters opinions. But Jack, while he affects lofty detachment over what Bush was doing "32 years ago," still thinks the NYT story is what's worth posting about, and discussing the Rather/CBS election-season coverage fraud is simply infra-dig.

The biggest issue I have with the CBS blunder is the repercussion it could have on media credibility, already at an insanely low level.

What if the media actually comes up with something mind blowing to report that is negative about Bush?

Who would believe? Why should we believe?

I hate TV news.

Anthony, I guess I really don't have much faith in the news networks anyway. I don't believe they are influenced by partisan beliefs, but are primarily influenced by monetary beliefs. They are greedy bastards who want you to read/watch/listen to what they say. So they can sell more advertisements. Its really that simple.

Nevertheless, I really don't care if Rather is biased toward the Democrats. Fox News is biased toward Republicans. I consider myself an intelligent free thinking individual, and I will make the decision on what news to believe and what news not to believe.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and may vote for him in 2004. BUT THIS WAR IN IRAQ IS A DISASTER! WE NEED TO PULL OUT NOW! However, instead we're focusing on Rather... drives me crazy.

The Bush TANG story matters because Bush is running for re-election as a War President who believes in accountability. Yet, the vast majority of evidence indicates that while publicly supporting the Vietnam War (back then and still today), he did everything possible to avoid actually fighting in it. The facts are clear: he jumped a waiting list of several hundred Texan boys waiting for a spot in the Texas Air National Guard, but he couldn't/didn't fulfill his obligations and yet still received an "Honorable Discharge". Why is that?

The important and, as yet, unanswered questions remain: Why did George W. Bush fail to take his pilot’s physical? Where is the proof that he fulfilled his commitment to the Guard, when the vast majority of evidence (including TANG rules and regulations) indicates he didn't?

Many on the right want to distract from these important questions by focusing on Dan Rather and the forged CBS documents. Yes, Rather and CBS screwed up. There are very few people disputing this right now.

If all the right-wingers breathlessly calling for the resignation of Dan Rather were really interested in media accountability they would have gone after Fox News long ago.

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 the wingers demand retractions and resignations from Hume, Hannity, and Gibson? Of course not (whether rightly or wrongly, neither did the Left).

And where was all the outrage about ABC's Chris Vlasto?

In 1995, he produced a report on ABC that accused Hillary Clinton of perjury, based largely on a doctored video clip of the First Lady.

Am I the only person exasperated by a double standard that treated everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life as fair game, but now insists that we shouldn't sully ourselves with any inconvenient questions about Bush's past?

Here's a great article on the current media-accountability issue from The New Republic Online: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=demos091504

I love this Justin:

"I voted for Bush in 2000, and may vote for him in 2004. BUT THIS WAR IN IRAQ IS A DISASTER! WE NEED TO PULL OUT NOW! However, instead we're focusing on Rather... drives me crazy. Posted by: Justin | September 22, 2004 11:10 AM "

Definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to be different.

Why not vote for a veteran who knows war and has risked his own life (and political career) for his fellow soldiers?

We will be in Iraq for at least a decade if Bush wins, if you take him at his word, and I do on that.

Kerry at least wants to get us out in four years,if you take him at his word, and I do on that.

I love this:

"Why not vote for a veteran who knows war and has risked his own life (and political career) for his fellow soldiers? "

Was this your slogan when GHW Bush or Bob Dole was running against Clinton! Very amusing.

Does simply being a veteran (and a very low-ranking one at that) necessarily qualify one for being commander-in-chief? I'm sure you don't believe that. Certainly Kerry's service is in itself a worthwhile credential. But it hardly beats actually having been commander-in-chief for four years. And Kerry's behavior following his service argues very strongly against his being fit for the job. For example, far from risking his political career for his fellow soldiers, he treated his fellow soldiers very badly as a means to having a political career.

We haven't left Germany, Japan, South Korea and you believe John Kerry when he says we'll be out of Iraq in four years? Sorry Miles but you are sadly mistaken.

And that's the whole problem with Kerry... when his opponent was Dean, he was pro-Iraq war, now that his opponent is Bush, he's against the war. This guy is a "say whatever" politician... no thanks. I'm sticking with Nader.

Maybe Kerry will get us out of Iraq? Maybe not? He certainly isn't talking like he wants to pull out.

In reality, Kerry and Bush are the same person. A reflection of the majority of Americans, with slight leanings to the left or right.

This election just isn't that important.

"I love this:

"Why not vote for a veteran who knows war and has risked his own life (and political career) for his fellow soldiers? "

Was this your slogan when GHW Bush or Bob Dole was running against Clinton! Very amusing."

Last time I checked Bush, Dole and Clinton weren't running in this election.

Clinton had the brains to oppose the war, Kerry had the brains to oppose it and the balls to fight in it. And the Bush supported it, while being just as chicken shit as Clinton.

HW Bush and Dole both (as far as I know) supported the Vietnam war.

The Vietnam war, not WWII, is the test of character at issue, because it is close enough in moral terms to Iraq.

The relevance of Kerry's experience to a guy who thinks the Iraq war is a disaster is fairly obvious - choose a guy who had the courage to resist another disasterous war, instead of the guy who didn't.

"Does simply being a veteran (and a very low-ranking one at that) necessarily qualify one for being commander-in-chief?"

Nope. What qualifies you is having a moral backbone and the capacity to recognize when national policy has gone tragically wrong.

"I'm sure you don't believe that."

Right. See previous.

" Certainly Kerry's service is in itself a worthwhile credential. But it hardly beats actually having been commander-in-chief for four years."

Actually it does, because it shows that he is a man of peersonal courage (fought) and moral courage (opposed the war at home.)

And Kerry's behavior following his service argues very strongly against his being fit for the job.

Not to someone who thinks the war in Iraq is a disaster as Jason does. Or as I do. To me it makes him a hero. Only someone who has a record of speaking truth to power has a chance of turning around US policy and get us out of Iraq."

" For example, far from risking his political career for his fellow soldiers, he treated his fellow soldiers very badly as a means to having a political career."

We and many many of his fellow Vietnam Veterans Agsint the War disagree with you on that point.

To me the combination of personal physical courage (fighting the war) and moral courage (opposition to the war) is the very opposite of Bush, who hid from fighting the war, but supported other people's fighting of the war.

As President he is still helping other people's children to die - the man never exhibited an ounce of personal courage in his life, and has never shown any moral courage in opposing any powerful institution or American policy. He's a disgusting human being, whom most sensible Americans are ashamed to have as their President.

Hey, I have company here. What a feeling.

To me, this is not news whatsoever. I know who George W. Bush is.

Exactly. The "news" in the CBS story wasn't that Bush got special treatment. Everyone already knew that, thanks to the muck of the 2000 campaign and the Michael Moore crap since then. The news was the documents, which any second-grader who has used Word could tell were not produced on a typewriter.

So the story really doesn't have anything to do with the race -- it has to do with the media. I don't think even the blundering Kerry campaign would be stupid enough to have anything to do with these documents, but the DNC is another matter. The CBS report was the night of September 8. The morning of September 9, the DNC came out with its "Fortunate Son" ad campaign, complete with footage from the CBS report. Awfully quick turnaround there.

Nice try, but there's no changing the subject on this one.

What do you care more about: having an honest media, or having Kerry as president? If it's the first, you would be aroused too.

"This election just isn't that important. Posted by: Justin | September 22, 2004 01:40 PM"

Justin, you and I are residing on different planets.

I'm not thrilled by Kerry. But to imagine that there aren't significant differences on the environment, health care, poverty and the economy, and on how many Americans will die in Iraq, and for how long, is to live on a different planet from the one I know.

Come back and think seriously about who these fellows call allies. Watch the debates. Do some reading.

Brett,

I'll ask my question again. If all the right-wingers breathlessly demanding accountability in the media were intellectually honest and not partisan hacks, wouldn't they would have gone after Fox News long ago?

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 the wingers demand retractions and resignations from Hume, Hannity, and Gibson? Of course not (whether rightly or wrongly, neither did the Left).

And where was all the outrage about ABC's Chris Vlasto?

In 1995, he produced a report on ABC that accused Hillary Clinton of perjury, based largely on a doctored video clip of the First Lady.

The right-wingers now calling for media accountability are hypocritical partisan hacks. Accountability cuts both ways.

Forget all this poo...

Let's get to the debates and see who flubs and looks the most like a marshmellow weiner.

Damn if I wouldn't mind seeing the biggest hot dog of all, Nader in those debates. Three ego-driven white men at the top of the social paradigmn slugging it out for truth, ennui, and the Global dream of leading the big nasty, wasty empire into the 21st century--sounds like a boring political porno.

Is that Jeopardy guy still winning?

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.

They said the photo was fake on-air. But even if they hadn't, it's not remotely comparable; Kerry freely admits his anti-war activities. He admits speaking at anti-war rallies. There was no story there. I'm not parroting the NYT "fake, but accurate" line; I'm saying the photo wasn't some bombshell like CBS sold the Bush memos as. I haven't heard anything about that ABC incident; care to substantiate?

I read this on Atrios this morning, re: ABC on Hillary Clinton and other outrageous media behavior during Clinton's presidency (it's kind of long, so I won't paste it all here):

Link

I agree that the real issue here is the journalistic mistake. I also agree with JS - where was the outrage during the Clinton years? Where were the media apologies? Where were the demands for resignations (of journalists, not of Clinton!). Liberal media bias? Hardly. The media likes a salacious story, and they will cut corners to be the first to report it.

There are now two more posts on Atrios about this. I'm too lazy to link to them now, but people can just go to http://atrios.blogspot.com and read them if they want.

CBS didn't do anything inconsistant with journalistic ethics.

I don't even know where to start.

The issue is not whether the documents were fake. The issue isn't the Vietnam War. The issue isn't swift boats or National Guard. To my knowledge, Fox new producers didn't call the Bush campaign to offer dirt. CBS tried to directly influence a federal election.

Brett

Brett

Brett

I devoted some thinking time to you today on my way home. From your posts you seem an intelligent guy.

Yet, if one looks closer, one sees someone who will cling irrationally to one possible view of reality instead of re-thinking his position in view of newly-acquired information.... sorta like your "resolute" champion, no?

Sadly, too few today are willing to think for themselves about these matters, preferring to follow the lead of the media du jour...

I would be willing to consider some of your arguments more seriously if you exhibited any evidence of considering arguments other than yours and copping to perhaps not being correct in an earlier post.

The media has bought into the "flip-flop" attacks of Rove et al 100%.

I want a President who will make a decision, clearly explain the basis for that decision at that point in time and then, in view of new evidence or arguments -- shift or even change that position.

Give me calm and reflective over resolute any day!!

ad hominem

Randy wrote (during his ad hominem dismissal of Brett):

"Give me calm and reflective over resolute any day!! "

My position: Give me resolute on September 12.

I would be willing to consider some of your arguments more seriously if you exhibited any evidence of considering arguments other than yours and copping to perhaps not being correct in an earlier post.

Show me the light, Randy... I am incorrect often, but to what, exactly, do you refer in this instance? I thought this thread was about Rathergate.

Anthony,

How about the resoluteness of Fearless Leader on the morning of 9/11? Continuing to read My Pet Goat to elementary school students for sevent precious minutes after CoS Andrew Card whispers, "We're under attack."

And then, out of terror and confusion, he hop-scotches around the country on Air Force. To pre-emptively deflect any criticsm of Fearless Leader's flight, his communications staff makes up the story that Air Force one was a target. It's laughable.

I think you're confusing being resolute with mindlessly reading whatever Karl and Dick put in front of him. Karl and Dick are resolute, when it's politically expedient, and Fearless Leader usually goes along with it.

Anthony wrote: "My position: Give me resolute on September 12."

My position: Give me resolute in August when Bush was at the ranch clearing brush and ignoring PDB's with titles like "Bin Laden determined to strike the US"

Kerry: "... And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon ...."

It should be noted that the second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m., and the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m. By Kerry's own words, he and his fellow senators sat there for forty minutes, realizing "nobody could think."

In other words: Sen. Kerry, who criticized President Bush for not rushing out of the Florida classroom for seven minutes, sat paralyzed with his colleagues for a full forty minutes. He is hardly in a position to criticize President Bush for "inaction."

JS,

All you offer are cheap shots. Everybody agrees that Bush, like his predecessor -- not to mention ordinary folks like you and me, smart ass -- did not appreciate the terrorist threat. The only question is how to deal with it once it's happened.

Reasonable people can argue about what policies are likely to succeed, and sure, resoluteness can be accompanied by or degenerate into stubbornness. But resoluteness is a quality most devoutly to be desired in wartime -- and it really counts at times like now when the going is rough.

In the midst of battle, one has to risk making mistakes in order to maintain the initiative. Inaction is fatal.

The news media will always sensationalize mayhem and tragedy, and there will always be plenty of "disasturbators" to focus on failures -- especially when they have partisan motives to not only influence others, but to fool themselves.

Lincoln was called stubborn for persisting in the disastrous civil war -- and was challenged in those terms during a presidential campaign by someone with more military experience than himself. Luckily Lincoln was resolute: he was forced to choose between bad options, but he continued the fight.

I understand consternation about the events in Iraq, but I can't understand why there isn't more appreciation for how bad retreat would be at this point in terms of the victory it would give to the various elements of the insurgency, and the highly consequential injury it would cause to the prestige of the United States. Giving in to these savages is not going to make life better for Iraqis, either in the near or long term. And it's not going to be good for the world.

JS,

All you offer are cheap shots. Everybody agrees that Bush, like his predecessor -- not to mention ordinary folks like you and me, smart ass -- did not appreciate the terrorist threat. The only question is how to deal with it once it's happened.

Reasonable people can argue about what policies are likely to succeed, and sure, resoluteness can be accompanied by or degenerate into stubbornness. But resoluteness is a quality most devoutly to be desired in wartime -- and it really counts at times like now when the going is rough.

In the midst of battle, one has to risk making mistakes in order to maintain the initiative. Inaction is fatal.

The news media will always sensationalize mayhem and tragedy, and there will always be plenty of "disasturbators" to focus on failures -- especially when they have partisan motives to not only influence others, but to fool themselves.

Lincoln was called stubborn for persisting in the disastrous civil war -- and was challenged in those terms during a presidential campaign by someone with more military experience than himself. Luckily Lincoln was resolute: he was forced to choose between bad options, but he continued the fight.

I understand consternation about the events in Iraq, but I can't understand why there isn't more appreciation for how bad retreat would be at this point in terms of the victory it would give to the various elements of the insurgency, and the highly consequential injury it would cause to the prestige of the United States. Giving in to these savages is not going to make life better for Iraqis, either in the near or long term. And it's not going to be good for the world.

It's funny how folks on the right (Anthony, for example) seem to be the only ones talking about "retreat" or "giving in to these savages [in Iraq]." Neither Kerry nor anyone else in the mainstream opposition to Bush has advocated withdrawing troops from Iraq before that country is safe, secure, and sovereign.

But I guess Anthony and I are living in different realities. He claims nobody "[appreciated] the terrorist threat" before 9/11. This flies in the face of numerous, well-substantiated reports, including:

1) In several post-election intelligence briefings for Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, Sandy Berger and other senior Clinton officials warned that Al Qaeda posed the single most serious threat to US security;

2) Bush virtually ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," that he received in August 2001 while on a month-long vacation at his home in Texas; and

3) The Washington Post and Newsweek have confirmed that the Cheney Terrorism Task Force did not meet a single time before 9/11.

One site that explains much of this is: http://www.9-11commission.gov/

On 9/11 neither John Kerry nor Bill Clinton had the authority to take any sort of substantial action in response to airliners crashing into buildings. As President and Commander in Chief, Bush was the only person in the world who had the authority to lead the nation. Yet he continued to read "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes after his Chief of Staff informed him that the US was under attack. Then he fled on Air Force One while his communications staff spun his inaction.

But back to the topic of the original thread, I'll borrow something I saw on www.dailykos.com a couple days ago...

Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor 1. given documents he thought were true 2. failed to thoroughly investigate the facts 3. reported documents to the American people as true to make his case 4. when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an investigation 5. number of Americans dead: 0 6. should be fired as CBS News Anchor?

George W. Bush, President of the United States 1. given documents he thought were true 2. failed to thoroughly investigate the facts 3. reported documents to the American people as true to make his case 4. when confronted with the facts, continued to report untruth and stonewalled an investigation 5. number of Americans dead: 1100 6. should be given four more years as President of the United States?

Where are the priorities? How can the media be distracted with such frivolities so easily?

I hope everyone watched the Q and A after Bush's press conference with the Iraqi Prime Minister. Check it out on www.cspan.org. Bush clearly doesn't know what he's talking about once he strays from the prepared message.

If everyone actually watched/listened to John Kerry and George Bush speak on the important issues (the economy, Iraq, etc.) and then answer questions. And if the media actually asked probing follow-up questions...

JS- Just as an exercise, try saying something constructive and positive about Bush.

JS,

You're still on cheap shots and shoddy argumentation.

I never said "nobody" appreciated the threat, I said neither the current nor the former administrations did, and I said that ordinary people didn't.

It's hardly a matter of being preoccupied with a "frivolity" to be concerned about a major network behaving as it has in this instance, given the potential of their big "exposé" to influence a national election. Concern about the misdeeds of Watergate, though more severe than this case, were no doubt "frivolous" in comparison to the horrors of war in Southeast Asia.

Regarding Kos. I'm sure we could all have an enjoyable brawl about who believed there were WMD and why, and what's been said and done since then. What does that have to do with Rather's particular misdeeds? And citing the deaths that happen because a president took the grave decision to go to war is the cheapest shot of them all.

The fact that Bush continued to read to those children after the first tower was hit is a very tenuous case against his resolution in the face of attack. We can have a Scholastic debate about just how stunned he was at that moment, but we can now look back and see what measures he took to fight this country's enemies. No doubt if he had rushed out of there you would have cited that of proof that he lacked equanimity in a moment of crisis -- a sure sign that he is unfit for leadership -- and that his being thus rattled in front of those children was an indication of how he wouldn't be able to secure the confidence of the public at large.

One can argue about any number of aspects of the current administration's plans (or lack thereof) surrounding the conduct of the war. But nobody, least of all the Islamofascists and various piss-pot dictators of the Middle East and elsewhere will doubt that this president will act robustly in the face of threats.

I see your posts tend to wander away from the points being argued and end up demonstrating nothing convincing except your obsessive hatred of Bush. Looks to me like another sad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I obviously don't like Bush. You're obviously a Bush apologist. Your posts even reflect his communication style--big on imagery and generalizations ("Islamofascists," "act robustly in the face of threats," etc.) and little attention paid to facts (historical or current).

Almost singlehandedly, he has created a chaotic mess in Iraq, and regardless of who wins our election on Nov. 2, both the people of Iraq and America will still be in deep doo doo.

And yes, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, but both the American and Iraqi people are worse off because of the pre-emptive war the Bush Administration chose to start in Iraq. These are not two mutually exclusive things.

Everybody who hasn't seen it really should watch the last 20 minutes of Bush's press conference with the Iraqi Prime Minister. Bypass the liberal/corporate/right-wing media filter and watch the event yourself at www.cspan.org

And I apologize for feeding the trolls.

What were we talking about?

Oh, yeah. "Bush sucks."

Keep changing the subject until you find your comfort zone.

sigh. this is so tiresome. CBS really has no interest in one or another party, they just take on the establishment. Anyone who suggests they are in secret alliance with the DNC is silly -- first, it would come out, and second, who the hell do you think owns CBS?

Rather, if he played any role in this, helped run with a story that he thought would be a crowning achievement to his career, and instead it's an embarassment. They were duped by a con man. It fit all the pattern of the past Bush record, that's why it was so easy to be duped. But duped they were.

still, i suppose i'm just a left wing lapdog but i really have a hard time comprehending the enthusiasm for Bush.

by what measure, any measure, is this administration not an abject failure?

1) tax cuts intended to stimulate the economy. economy is teetering, stock market is stuck in neutral, job gains are minimal to zero.

2) we are engaged in a long foreign conflict with flagging public support, increasing casualties, and no end in sight.

3) non-partisan estimates of the long term deficit as a consequence of Bush's policies are too large to comprehend, some estimates exceed the total net worth of the country(more than 40 TRILLION dollars)

I just don't get it. This is basically a mediocre presidency with a mediocre to disastrous domestic and foreign policy record.

it is a sad commentary on American politics today that a) all the Democrats could nominate was their own mediocrity and b) regardless, that there isn't a huge "Republicans for Bush" movement. 3)

<hr/>