First the NYTime, then CBS. Who will face reality?

September 20, 2004 12:35 AM

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.First the NYTimes, then CBS. Who will face reality?
posted by HTuttle (113 comments total)

Who cares? The guy's own office didn't dispute the memos until some blogs concluded it's possible to use Word to type documents. Then the Obfuscation Machine spread conspiracies and doubt. The underlying truth no longer mattered as long as neocons kept up the rhetoric.
posted by fleener at 1:18 AM on September 20, 2004

Which reality?

Most of my lefty friends accepted the idea that the Killian CYI memo was false, and that it doesn't matter: there's still a substantial body of evidence that shows when it came to guard service, Bush didn't follow through. And that that isn't even so important as the reality that Bush is screwing over the nation.

Most of my righty friends accepted the idea thath the Killian CYI memo was false, and that this is an example of the depths to which the corrupt left is willing to sink, but really, they're divided about whether they think Bush's guard record was crappy or if it matters.

Some of my left friends believe this is actually a brilliant political manipulation -- place one faked document into circulation on a topic, get Bush an out-of-scrutiny free card, by many who can't discern between the fake document and a larger body of evince and now think the whole thing is fake. Fortunately, most of my righty friends are smarter than that.
posted by namespan at 1:30 AM on September 20, 2004

Who will face reality?

Get behind me, boys! I'll do it!

*faces reality, heroically*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:32 AM on September 20, 2004

In a telephone interview this weekend, Josh Howard, the executive producer of the "60 Minutes'' Wednesday edition... noted, no one seemed to be casting doubt upon the essential thrust of the report.

Mr. Howard also said in the interview that the White House did not dispute the veracity of the documents when it was presented to them on the morning of the report. That reaction, he said, was "the icing on the cake'' of the other reporting the network was conducting on the documents. White House officials have said they saw no reason to challenge documents being presented by a credible news organization.

Again, reality seems to be saying: nobody disputed the issue the faked document (and other real documents) was pointing to. Anyone, is, of course, welcome to start, but the fact the White House itself didn't take issue with them seems to lead one to believe that they honestly believe that something like it could be out there.
posted by namespan at 1:41 AM on September 20, 2004

I think atrios mentioned this before, but, a forged memo on CBS about the Bush's national guard service spawns outrage on the right. However, a forged memo (niger) that led our country to war, gets a pass. This is why we trust republicans to protect us from the evil-doers.
posted by nads at 1:48 AM on September 20, 2004

nads, you said it.

I loved the sentence in linked article which states that Rather and others still believe in the content of the memos...

That'd be because they're true, but no written records exist.

This is Rove's finest hour.
The nation's, that's another story.
posted by Busithoth at 1:55 AM on September 20, 2004

Even if the content of the memos are accurate, I hate to see people defend these memos. The fact that they were so obviously fake (compare the fake and genuine memos) and that CBS and some lefty bloggers tried to defend them for so long makes it even worse.

Shitty and dishonest reporting is shitty and dishonest reporting. Period. Whether it favours right or left or Democrat or Republican it should not be tolerated.

On Preview: Bushitoth, another thing that irks me are people claiming this was some Rove conspiracy plot to discredit the Dems. If he's that clever then Kerry might as well throw in the towel cos there is no way he'll win.
posted by PenDevil at 1:57 AM on September 20, 2004

Rove was the guy who bugged his own office to cast suspicion on his political opponents. It's not like there isn't reason to suspect him of similar chicanery.
posted by RavinDave at 3:02 AM on September 20, 2004

Hey, wait, Dan Rather said he wanted to break this story. Where do you get off eating Dan's lunch like this? Have some respect.
posted by jfuller at 3:38 AM on September 20, 2004

Wouldn't a lying liar be someone who tried to lie but told the truth?
posted by wackybrit at 3:54 AM on September 20, 2004

meanwhile, in year 2004,

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A deadline set by militants who have threatened to behead two Americans and a Briton seized in Iraq was due to expire Monday, and more than two dozen other hostages were also facing death unless rebel demands were met.

WASHINGTON - Senators from both parties urged the Bush administration Sunday to make a realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq and adjust its policies aimed at pacifying the country.
But Bush readied a firm defense of his Iraq policy -- and a sharp new attack on rival Sen. John Kerry's stance -- for a speech today.

BAGHDAD -- An AMS spokesman told Aljazeera the body of Shaikh Hazim al-Zaidi was found in front of al-Sajjad mosque in Sadr City, in eastern Baghdad.
There are reports he was abducted late on Sunday along with two others outside the mosque. Other reports indicate that he was killed after leaving the mosque.
The shaikh was in charge of coordination among Muslim clerics within the AMS and other religious movements in Iraq.

WASHINGTON -- Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

____________________

you can now return to the real important issues, ie what really happened in 1972
posted by matteo at 4:06 AM on September 20, 2004

How about what 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." She declined to be interviewed late Tuesday, but her son, Pat Carr, confirmed her comments.

From USA Today
posted by rough ashlar at 4:44 AM on September 20, 2004

Who will face reality?

Certainly not Little Green Snotballs.
Or the neocon Likudniks.
Or the Defenders of All Things Duhbya.

Did CBS admit to a mistake in the authenticity of the documents? Yes.
Had Bush ever admitted to a mistake? No.

Is Bush a "Fortunate Son?" Yes.
Did he misuse and abuse even that special privilege? Yes.

Are there much more important things in the political realm the 101st Fighting Keyboarders should be seeking the truth about? Most definitely.
posted by nofundy at 4:47 AM on September 20, 2004

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them:
On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding.

But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn't remember if he'd ever been grounded.

CBS appear to be patsys in a clumsy hoax - they are about to admit their error [in publishing real information in a false package]. Will Bush admit to any of his lies/ omissions/ deceptions about his service, whilst riding on military coattails and attacking the service of a man who actually served?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:02 AM on September 20, 2004

> First the NYTimes, then CBS.

Yeah, neither of these media companies did any fact checking about Iraq's invisible WMDs and the lies of the swifties, they just fell in line (mostly) and parroted the patriotic correct talking points.

I'm with you, when will they face reality? Also, when will they face the present and not 1972?
posted by skallas at 5:07 AM on September 20, 2004

I'm with matteo, and even the green zone is not secure in Iraq anymore, which tells you tons about that whole mess.

And has Bush ever in his life admitted to any of his many lies/omissions/deceptions? If this whole thing is about character, the answer is very important.
posted by amberglow at 5:10 AM on September 20, 2004

Today's salon headline piece is all about what Bush did and didn't do in the TANG.
posted by skallas at 5:17 AM on September 20, 2004

Wow. A truely bad (and arguably redundant) post, with no new news to speak of. Only rumors that CBS *may* announce they were tricked.

HTuttle has already indicated that he is hopelessly slanted on this issue and will not wait until the evidence is in before evaluating the facts. Hang Rather now -- even if it wasn't Rather's fault -- convict later... or better yet, not at all.

For all I know, he could be a Freeper -- he certainly acts like one. No matter who he is, though, his obsessive ranting means nothing without some kind of new information... and this NY Times article seems less conclusive of any real new information, frankly, than CBS' questioned documents.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:22 AM on September 20, 2004

Wouldn't a lying liar be someone who tried to lie but told the truth?

No. "Lying Liar" is a redundant statement, not a double negative.
posted by glenwood at 5:23 AM on September 20, 2004

[Thanks skallas - I mangled that link I quoted]
posted by dash_slot- at 5:23 AM on September 20, 2004

Who will face reality?

And for god's sake, won't someone think of the children?
posted by glenwood at 5:24 AM on September 20, 2004

Shitty and dishonest reporting is shitty and dishonest reporting. Period.

A fucking men.

I remember reading the same kinda shit on this thread.

"Yeah the photos are fake but it's excusable coz that's what I believe is happening."

Shame shame shame.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 5:39 AM on September 20, 2004

You guys should all be ashamed of yourselves, leaving Stavros out there to face reailty all by himself....

What's it like, man? Are there colors?
posted by lodurr at 6:50 AM on September 20, 2004

For those who are really and truly interested in the subject, let me recommend this link as the current definitive writing on the matter.
Highly recommended reading.

Otherwise, carry on. I will enjoy the spittle and flung dung.
posted by nofundy at 6:51 AM on September 20, 2004

Christ, HTuttle, this is the fucking lamest post I've seen in a while. Please, pack up your agenda and go back to LGF where your abject hatred of Dan Rather will find more welcome eyes.

There's absolutely zero substance in your link- CBS has "grave doubts" and "would most likely make an announcement as early as today"? Come back when something actually happens.

This whole thing reeks of setup, from the "non-denials" of the White House to the awfully quick "debunking" (on preview- go read nofundy's link). Why, if I were conspiratorially minded, I'd even begin to wonder why someone who hasn't posted in three years suddenly found the inspiration to do so.
posted by mkultra at 7:01 AM on September 20, 2004

WaPo (registration required): CBS to Say It Was Misled on Bush Guard Memos.
posted by PenDevil at 7:05 AM on September 20, 2004

CBS's fact checkers missed the boat on the typography thing, no doubt.

But those memos are just retyped from longhand. The underlying question of whether Killian really made such notes, and whether Bush family friends put pressure on the TANG office to sweeten GWB's record, remains untouched.

The spasm of attention to Word spacing etc, is basically FUD to take the focus off of the slacker past of our dry-drunk-in-chief.
posted by anser at 7:06 AM on September 20, 2004

Oops my bad: That WaPo story is pretty much the same as the NYT one.
posted by PenDevil at 7:07 AM on September 20, 2004

Eh. Red meat for the right-wingers at this point, complete with HTuttle proving effortlessly his membership in the "CBS and the NYT are the bastions of liberal media" crowd.

The warbloggers declared that this will cost Kerry the election, destroy CBS, cripple Viacom's stock, and cause Rather to resign. When absolutely none of that happens, watch how fast they stop talking about it in terms of who "won" and who "lost." The idea that Bush of all people might start using "faulty evidence" as a campaign tactic is hysterical.

Why, if I were conspiratorially minded, I'd even begin to wonder why someone who hasn't posted in three years suddenly found the inspiration to do so.

Dude, a simple look at HTuttle's posting history shows he's spent the last few years picking political threads to leave one-line turds in on a routine basis. Today, he decided he was the star.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:20 AM on September 20, 2004

Who will face reality?

Why don't you face a little fucking reality, bucko?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:28 AM on September 20, 2004

Did you know that when you do something with good intentions and you believe you're accurate, you're not lying? When that information turns out to have some holes, and you readily admit it, that it's still not lying?

It's lying when you make an untrue statement with intent to deceive, or so the dictionary tells me. If you have no reason to believe the information is false, then that's not your intent. It takes a big man to admit his mistakes, but it only takes a small one to kick him while he's down. <snark>The fact that the so-called "liberal media" readily admit mistakes obviously means they're weak, not that they're honest. If they were strong, truth wouldn't matter. </snark>
posted by mikeh at 7:35 AM on September 20, 2004

Greg Palast, The Lynching of Dan Rather:

"...Indeed, Dan is in hot water for a report my own investigative team put in Britain's Guardian papers and on BBC TV years ago. Way back in 1999, I wrote that former Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes had put in the fix for little George Bush to get out of 'Nam and into the Air Guard.

What is hot news this month in the USA is a five-year-old story to the rest of the world. And you still wouldn't see it in the USA except that Dan Rather, with a 60 Minutes producer, finally got fed up and ready to step out of line. And, as Dan predicted, he stuck out his neck and got it chopped off.

Is Rather's report accurate? Is George W. Bush a war hero or a privileged little Shirker-in-Chief? Today I saw a goofy two page spread in the Washington Post about a typewriter used to write a memo with no significance to the draft-dodge story. What I haven't read about in my own country's media is about two crucial documents supporting the BBC/CBS story. The first is Barnes' signed and sworn affidavit to a Texas Court, from 1999, in which he testifies to the Air Guard fix -- which Texas Governor George W. Bush, given the opportunity, declined to challenge...
And there is a second document, from the files of US Justice Department, again confirming the story of the fix to keep George's white bottom out of Vietnam. That document, shown last year in the BBC television documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," correctly identifies Barnes as the bag man even before his 1999 confession.

At BBC, we also obtained a statement from the man who made the call to the Air Guard general on behalf of Bush at Barnes' request. Want to see the document? I've posted it at: http://www.gregpalast.com/ulf/documents/draftdodgeblanked.jpg"
posted by talos at 8:28 AM on September 20, 2004

So many posters come in on these FPPs and mention how they're shit because they're single, unfounded NY Times links.

And none of them have done that here. Isn't it obvious they're all in some kind of trouble?

Has anyone even bothered to call their homes to make sure they're okay?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:29 AM on September 20, 2004

This thread speaks volumes.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:29 AM on September 20, 2004

This thread speaks volumes.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Dead men tell no tales. Wait, that was yesterday.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:51 AM on September 20, 2004

I personally could not care less that CBS news, lead by their anchorman, went on the air with a story using fake documents as key evidence, then stood by the documents for a week when people as dumb as even bloggers could see they were not authenticatable. The important issue here is that Kerry is not the president. Maybe after Kerry is president I can start to worry about whether the media is doing their job well or not.
posted by ericost at 8:52 AM on September 20, 2004

If you can look at that side-by-side comparison and still deny there's something to the story, then you have enough cognitive dissonance for a mountain of Freepers.
posted by darukaru at 9:05 AM on September 20, 2004

Fonts aside, the underlying story is proving to have some legs:

Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time - see (bugmenot) if needed.

Mr. Bush first tried to join the 9921 Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, which was classified as a "standby reserve unit." Unlike his unit in Texas, the Alabama unit had no planes and its members were neither paid nor required to attend monthly drills.

In July, though, senior Guard officials rejected Mr. Bush's transfer, saying he had to continue with a "ready reserve unit," which requires monthly attendance. In that same period - the precise timing is not clear - he did something that brought his dwindling flying ambitions to a close: he failed to take the annual physical exam required of all pilots.

In his 1999 book, "A Charge to Keep," Mr. Bush did not mention the missed physical or the suspension. "I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard," he wrote, "and was no longer flying because the F-102 jet I had trained in was being replaced by a different fighter." In fact, when he missed his physical he had almost two years left in the Guard.

Later, an aide to Mr. Bush explained that he had missed his physical because he was waiting to get examined by his personal physician. But pilots were required to be examined by military doctors.

More recently the White House has said that he did not take the physical because Alabama units were not flying the F-102. But his second application to transfer to Alabama - after the rejected transfer in July - was filed in September 1972, at least two months after he had missed his physical...

After the election, Mr. Bush returned to Houston, moving out of his small rented bungalow in Montgomery. He left the place a mess, with a broken light fixture and piles of debris, according to Mary Smith, whose husband was the bungalow's caretaker. Ms. Smith said her husband, who has since died, sent Mr. Bush a bill for professional cleaning but never heard back.

By January 1973, Mr. Bush had a new job, with an inner-city youth program organized by John L. White, a former professional football player who knew his father. And he continued his erratic relationship with the National Guard, where he had 18 months left of his six-year commitment.

Now there's an oblique reference to Project P.U.L.L. in the New York Times.

Fascinating... /Mr. Spock
posted by y2karl at 9:19 AM on September 20, 2004

Blatantly ripped off of Drudge before the terrible page design made me go blind

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
posted by PenDevil at 9:23 AM on September 20, 2004

> The underlying truth
> the underlying story is proving

The CBS report using forged memos, and much of the general discussion of Bush on metafilter, amounts to:

CONFIRMATION BIAS
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.

This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices.
posted by dand at 9:26 AM on September 20, 2004

The title of this thread reminds me that even those who write (about) Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them are infact also Liars themselves.

..can't trust anyone.
posted by tomplus2 at 9:33 AM on September 20, 2004

Actually, since you're bringing up terms such as "confirmation bias," if you were really thinking scientifically about the issue, one would not have come out and said "any idiot can tell that ..." so-and-so based on the opinions of a few partisan bloggers, who ended up being wrong on many levels about why the documents were questionable. But questions that involve thinking scientifically are another topic for another day.

At least Dan has confessed to being misled. His reputation has been hurt, and deserved if Burkett was used as the most important source. If he was using him as the unimpeachable source, or his producer was, it would be good to hear more about it. The matter deserves some investigation, and discussion in journalism circles. I don't like Bush at all, but Burkett sounds pretty darned iffy, although it's hard to tell just from the info I've been presented. Why would even USA Today, which hardly has a partisan rep (Christopher Buckley cited them not all that long ago as the one national news outlet without any noticeable bias, as far as he could tell), fall for the same thing?

On the other hand, plenty of other news and political debacles of the past two years deserve(d) more intense scrutiny. Yellowcake, anyone? This story is important, but not as important as it's been made out to be, or at least it isn't when compared to what else is going on in the world.
posted by raysmj at 9:45 AM on September 20, 2004

Umm... Franken wrote the letter to Ashcroft as a satire. He even says that in his book. It's not some kind of hidden conspiracy. It was a prank. So, yeah, tomplus, irrelevant and incorrect. Good job.

As for the actual subject, this is all kind of funny still because the wingers are still acting as though they've proven Dan Rather to be some kind of liberal demon under the command of General Hillary or some stupid shit like that. Much like the White House did with their "intelligence," CBS will, if anything, announce that their story lacked the rock-hard factual backing they originally believed, depicting them as victims of faulty information. It's a hit for their journalistic integrity, but the bloggers who think Rather's going to say that he himself lied are even more delusional than they were a week ago.

Don't get me wrong, though, this is a great day for the Guys With Websites. Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge are sitting at home now seriously believing that liberals worldwide are beating their breasts screaming "no! Not RATHER! They destroyed our beloved, beloved Rather!" as if we actually look to any mainstream talking head as a hero they way the say we do because... umm... they say so. It's been proven they'll never listen to anyone else anyway, so let them have their fun and believe what they want to believe.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:57 AM on September 20, 2004

XQUZYPHYR, satire is one thing, but I'm talking about the letterhead.

Lies, deception and spin come from all sides.
posted by tomplus2 at 10:02 AM on September 20, 2004

It is amazing to me to see the left give CBS a pass on this. Had there been a similar story by CBS with forged documents attacking Kerry not one of it's defenders would be saying "Why are we so distracted by the forgeries?"

Sorry, but a major media outlet playing a willfully negligent (at BEST) role in the dissemination of information like this is a story. you can try and pretend it isn't you can scream "fake but accurate" all you want - but you know it's important.

Hell, Micheal Moore has made mega bucks selling the left crap that has less reality than the forgeries story.

This fiasco will probably cost Kerry the election as it reveals more and more the lengths that people are willing to go to - and the lengths that many Kerry supporters will check their objectivity at the door in favor of hatred.

Keep telling people that it "doesn't matter" that the CBS documents were forged. It just makes you look seriously our of touch with reality.

If Kerry and his supporters wanted to salvage something they should put as much distance as they can, and as much condemnation as they can, onto this attmpt at manipulation.

And yelling about whether Bush did that with the SwiftVets isn't relevant, this is about what Kerry needs to do to recover poll numbers... not about fairness.
posted by soulhuntre at 10:13 AM on September 20, 2004

Lies, deception and spin come from all sides.

True. But, Franken apologized. ... at length. Let's see Bill O'Reilly, Britt Hume, Rush Limbaugh, or Matt Drudge step up and do the same the next time they are caught in the midst of fabrication, innuendo or distortion.
posted by psmealey at 10:16 AM on September 20, 2004

So--Did Bush serve all of his required time? Why didn't he take the physical? Did he show up for duty in Alabama? Did he jump over hundreds of other Texans to get into the National Guard? Did his father call? Were people pressured?
posted by amberglow at 10:25 AM on September 20, 2004

It's kind of fun to watch the reaction, actually. People have already gone from 'IT'S REAL IT'S REAL ST00PID REPUG DEATHBLOGGERS' to 'KARL ROVE DID IT!'

Kos and Atrios seem to be ignoring it entirely.
posted by darukaru at 10:25 AM on September 20, 2004

tomplus2- Anyone who read Franken's letter and thought it was real deserves heaps of ridicule. Just to make sure you're caught up, though, please take note that the following things are not real, either:

The Blair Witch Project
A Modest Proposal
SNL skits
War of the Worlds, as narrated by Orson Wells

soulhuntre: Keep telling people that it "doesn't matter" that the CBS documents were forged. It just makes you look seriously our of touch with reality.

What reality is that? The one where Bush skipped out on his National Guard service? If you pay attention at all, the lack of smoking gun doesn't obviate the mounds of (and I use this word generously) circumstantial evidence. This flap is classic Karl Rove "one part is false, therefore the whole thing is false" crap.
posted by mkultra at 10:33 AM on September 20, 2004

At this point it makes most sense that the Bush campaign would be responsible for the false memo in the first place. Why? Because an obvious forgery serves well as a means for the President to avoid answering the obvious questions regarding his service in the National Guard, something he's spent the last 4 years doing.

The memo is false, but that fact doesn't answer any questions about his presence/absence in Alabama, how he magically skipped to the top of the waiting list for an assignment in the "Champagne Squadron", how a skipped physical did not result in sanctions even though it seems likely to have been an attempt to escape drug testing (the President has never denied that), the interesting timing of his "escape from Texas" in 1972, or the downward curve of his proficiency testing while in the Texas ANG.

Is the introduction of white elephants (or red herrings) a Rove strategy? I for one think so.

On preview it seems I'm not the only one who does...
posted by clevershark at 10:46 AM on September 20, 2004

And yelling about whether Bush did that with the SwiftVets isn't relevant, this is about what Kerry needs to do to recover poll numbers... not about fairness.

"Not About Fairness".
at least we got the American Right's perfect tagline out of this sorry thread.

otherwise one cannot begin to understand how a draft-dodging cokehead/alcoholic can somehow dictate the patriotic/moral "agenda" of 2 elections in a row when his opponents are both non-draft-dodgers who actually went to Vietnam and never had a cocaine/booze addiction (and never had their brother/SCOTUS friends stole an election for him). when you discard fairness and decency, you certainly have a vital advantage against decent, non-draft-dodging, non-cocaine-snorting sober opponents

"liberal media" indeed
*snicker*

it's also funny how the rest of the industrialized world seems to be considering more, ahem, pressing issues, like Iraq. or where Al Qaeda is going to strike next. this 1972 revival (regarding an issue that the rest of the world knows it was settled long ago in court and never appealed against by Bush and his handlers, as Palast pointed out)

heh.

speaks volumes indeed.
posted by matteo at 10:49 AM on September 20, 2004

People have already gone from 'IT'S REAL IT'S REAL ST00PID REPUG DEATHBLOGGERS' to 'KARL ROVE DID IT!'

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally didn't take a position on whether or not the memos were real in the first place. Clearly CBS jumped the gun so they could be said to carry a major, then-exclusive story, and it is indeed sad that this over-eagerness will undoubtedly be a major stain on the credibility of CBS News.
posted by clevershark at 10:50 AM on September 20, 2004

soulhuntre, your comment was a perfect example of the very selective reasoning dand was trying to accuse liberals of.

First of all, CBS hasn't said the memos were forged- they said, and I'm quoting here- that they "cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them." I'm sure you'll accuse me of "liberal trickery" now, but there's a difference. Unless I misread the CBS statement, no one has declared the memos a guaranteed forgery, and certainly no one has identified a forger.

Second of all, the Kerry stuff is laughable. No one outside of the most extreme baseless right-wingers have suggested that Kerry is involved with this, and there's even less actual evidence that Kerry has anything to do with this than there is of the memos being forgeries.

Third, it would help if your condesceding attitude about how "the left is giving CBS a pass" actually explained who the left was, and what exactly pass they are giving. With the exception of Dan Rather himself, I don't really see that many people saying that CBS is some poor helpless victim- they fucked up. I'm just laughing at the idea the wingers are pushing that CBS actually created a lie. They ran a bogus story they thought was true. Matt Drudge does this eight days a week, and you know what, soulhuntre? The weblogs you probably read are gonna be linking to his bullshit tomorrow and the day after and you're going to pretend there's nothing wrong with that.

Fourth, I'm not sure what time frame you think "more and more" is going to be revealed- if you didn't notice, the wingers' desire to keep the CBS issue on the front burner has all but eliminated their own side's personal smear campaign- the Swift Boat Liars, who haven't been mentioned in two weeks now, and with their book no longer topping the charts and the quagmire in Iraq taking full force once again, likely won't be again.

I'm not trying to brag, but it's really the truth- the righties desperate to smear CBS and defeat their self-percieved "liberal" enemy diverted all their resources from a smear tactic that was effectively damaging Kerry toward this little crusade of theirs. Kerry owes the Power Line blog a debt of gratitude for kicking the Swift Boat Liars off the front page.

Let's look at the honest, actual end-game of this entire issue: everyone came out with something. Rightwingers were convinced that CBS was a liberal slander-house. They now have something that will fuel their beliefs for at least a year. CBS gets off with a bruised ego but ethically scott-free; after all it's not like they lied, only their sources did. They get to play the victim and while no one will believe it, it's enough. Lefties are happy because, as I noted, this whole story dropped the Swift Boat guys dead in the water, and in all honesty the media as a whole is probably tapping the pulse of the entire Vietnam flashback debate and realizing they need something new to keep viewers interested. The memos are still ambiguous as to how accurate they are, yet the issue of Bush's AWOLing has become openly addressed again. There's no connection to the Bush campaign, there's no connection to the Kerry campaign, and there will likely be no connection to any actual guilty party. Everyone's got at least some egg on the side of their face, but they all choose to see out the other eye.

Meanwhile, the Navy closed the book on Kerry's medals, Bush still hasn't accounted for his Guard service but it's officially safe to say no one cares, tomorrow marks six weeks until the election, we're 10 days away from the first debate, and in two weeks people are going to be watching the Yankees and the Red Sox fight it out again for the pennant, not updates on 60 Minutes. Forget a lack of interest, there's literally no time left for this non-issue because the rest of the schedule is already booked.

Is this issue resolved? Nope. Never will be. But it's certainly over anywhere except in Some Guy with a Website's comments section.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:56 AM on September 20, 2004

"real" journalists didn't "screw up" a damn thing.

-XQUZYPHYR, September 11, 2004

I don't really see that many people saying that CBS is some poor helpless victim- they fucked up.

-XQUZYPHYR, September 20, 2004
posted by Kwantsar at 11:14 AM on September 20, 2004

Kwanstar, you did read the comment right above that, right? The one where Mick was saying that the bloggers were fighting the "real" journalists? My response was that Mick's "real" journalists aren't screwups by means of webloggers using even less credible means of garnering a story. Here's my entire comment:

God, this is my favorite part of the whole deal. It puts a smile on my face. Back away, everyone! The bloggers are shifting the paradigms again! Away! Away! It's LGF! Don't you know their glorious light will burn you? REPENT! I'm amazed Powerline hasn't declared itself the cure for cancer yet.

Mick, "real" journalists didn't "screw up" a damn thing. A bunch of guys with websites even more partisan than any partisanship could ever be gauged in the media insisted that a story a news organization reported was untrue. They provided absolutely no tangible evidence on their accusation, have no tangible evidence, and will likely never find any tangible evidence. As a result, they have held themselves truly to a standard of respectable journalism by declaring themselves correct, because they said so.

Our top online story tonight: partisan weblogs think there is a bias in the media, claim "proof" of questionable veracity. Also, General Franco is still dead. The very structure of journalism weeps at how pathetic it is that you would declare this a victory of higher standards for the sake of feeling good about yourself. Grow up, man.

My comment was about blogs declaring themselves the authority of truth over the mainstream media, not that CBS was a victim. But you knew that.

In terms of their story being rock solid? Yeah, CBS fucked up. And I admit that at an earlier time I had more confidence in their claims of accuracy. But did bloggers prove that "real" journalists "screwed up" where they were clearly even less objective than Dan Rather? Absolutely not. I'm still right: they provided absolutely no tangible evidence on their accusation, have no tangible evidence, and will likely never find any tangible evidence. They merely whined long enough and with enough vigor to get more scrutiny placed on a single CBS story than they have for any lie to ever come from the White House.

Any other quotes of mine you'd like to distort?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:30 AM on September 20, 2004

Who is this "left who is giving a pass" to these documents? All I've seen is lots of skepticism and the established facts that Bush had strings pulled so he wouldn't have to fight in Vietnam with the "lower classes." On top of it the GOP mocks veterans. Yeah, party of the military my ass.

This is Pat Peale, Republican:



So after these poor kids have suffered in Iraq, the party's message to them is "too bad you're not a rich kid like Bush" and "Dont speak out against the war."

Back to your scheduled arm-chair detective forged documents story.
posted by skallas at 11:37 AM on September 20, 2004

Also, to all the blind and limbless coming from Iraq, Marilyn Shannon Brooks laughs in your face. Man, who needs "Tokyo Rose" when we have Republicans.



source
posted by skallas at 11:40 AM on September 20, 2004

And I admit that at an earlier time I had more confidence in their claims of accuracy.

"More confidence"? You have truly mastered the art of rhetoric.

I distorted nothing, I used no ellipsis, and I linked to the full text of your comments. And the very, very best that you can do is to cut-and-paste context that doesn't undermine (in the slightest) the claim implicit in my post.

You were on the wrong side of this one. You even seem to realize this. Yet you continue to grasp at straws. It's sad.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:53 AM on September 20, 2004

Goofing on the Purple Heart? I guess that makes more sense than all these older republicans being Nelly fans...

; )
posted by stifford at 11:55 AM on September 20, 2004

Nice work, skallas. Thanks for elevating the discourse here.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:57 AM on September 20, 2004

Nice work, skallas. Thanks for elevating the discourse here.

So are there any other messengers left to shoot? Or can we go back to ignoring the President lying about his service record and ignoring RNC delegates denigrating other people's service record?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:06 PM on September 20, 2004

Anytime. There's a fucking war going on right now built on lies and htuttle and company think some bs documents from 1972 is what's important. Man, you conservatives are swimming in lies which have killed over 1.000
american soldiers. That's a reality check for you.
Face that reality for once.
posted by skallas at 12:07 PM on September 20, 2004

I distorted nothing, I used no ellipsis, and I linked to the full text of your comments. And the very, very best that you can do is to cut-and-paste context that doesn't undermine (in the slightest) the claim implicit in my post.

Umm.... you distorted it by not pointing out that I was responding to a previous comment that directly related to specific words in my own. And my "cut and paste context"- how dare I provide THAT- proves just what it needs to- that you distorted what I said. Why else would you "implicitly claim" it, instead of just having the guts to actually suggest something? Way to go there yourself, "master of rhetoric."

And I'm not on "the wrong side" of anything. I said before that the right-wing bloggers have shit credibility. I said their credibility is worse than CBS'. Even though my faith in CBS' credibility is lower than it was a week ago I still say so- given the Drudges and LGFs of the internet, CBS still has the blogosphere by leaps and bounds against partisan websites, left and right.

And I notice you haven't bothered to refute the fact that the rightie bloggers pushed mountains of later-discredited claims, and still haven't a tangible case proving forgery. I never said I'm 100% correct about everything I believed in this story, but I'm standing by my opinions and statements instead of accusing others around me of flip-flopping. (Heh.)

Does that explain everything, or would you rather I link somewhere else to implicity suggest it?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:16 PM on September 20, 2004

"Some of my left friends believe this is actually a brilliant political manipulation -- place one faked document into circulation on a topic, get Bush an out-of-scrutiny free card, by many who can't discern between the fake document and a larger body of evince and now think the whole thing is fake. Fortunately, most of my righty friends are smarter than that."

This is, assuming it's true, an example of the "poison well" disinformation tactic. This is, in effect, a technique many believe the French went with to discredit British intelligence about Iraq's attempts to purchase yellowcake from Congo for making nuclear weapons.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:19 PM on September 20, 2004

I like yellow cake with chocolate icing.
posted by sciurus at 12:25 PM on September 20, 2004

Allright, its picture day?

Even worse than "purple heart band-aids" celebrating Kerry/Klinger's successful gaming of the system for early trip home, our poor boys returning from fighting for Halliburton in Iraq are facing the SOCCER BALL OF HONOR!!!


posted by dand at 12:29 PM on September 20, 2004

I took a course at BU on disinformation, with a Professor who worked for the Czech information service in the 1960's (and then defected). Some of the most powerful PR and ad techniques I know were inspired by the course....
posted by ParisParamus at 12:32 PM on September 20, 2004

Rugby Ball of Honor!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:35 PM on September 20, 2004

People are still musing that these cooked documents could be real? The defense of these possibly being authentic has been weak at best, and it is a stupid thing to spend your credibility on.

Regardless of who presented the evidence of forgery, it speaks for itself. Continuing to believe they are possibly valid betrays ignorence or a poorer eye than I would have believed possible.

Everybody knows Bush was absent and drunk. Is it that potent a weapon against him that it is worth clinging to crooked paper? These are desperate times, don't be stupid.
posted by thirteen at 1:06 PM on September 20, 2004

But who made crooked paper the issue? And what do they gain from talking about crooked paper rather than Iraq or the Economy or the Deficit?
posted by amberglow at 1:14 PM on September 20, 2004

heh--rather than
posted by amberglow at 1:15 PM on September 20, 2004

Third, it would help if your condesceding attitude about how "the left is giving CBS a pass" actually explained who the left was...

Ha ha ha! The sneaky "define [insert subject here]" escape clause. The last refuge of the scoundrel.

Yet in the very same post, XQUZYPHYR, I noted with a smile that you have no problems using the terms "rightwinger" and "righties", amongst others.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:15 PM on September 20, 2004

I took a course at BU on disinformation

PP took a course on disinformation... was it a practical course?

/I kid, I kid
posted by clevershark at 10:21 PM on September 20, 2004

otherwise one cannot begin to understand how a draft-dodging cokehead/alcoholic can somehow dictate the patriotic/moral "agenda" of 2 elections in a row when his opponents are both non-draft-dodgers who actually went to Vietnam

Americans recently elected a draft-dodger who ran against legitimate war heroes twice in a row, but his name was Bill Clinton, who was and still is a hero to the (formerly and currently-at-heart pro-draft-dodging) left. If I didn't mind Clinton, how can I fault Bush on this issue? I didn't then, and I don't now, but maybe you can explain it to me, mario.

this is all kind of funny still because the wingers are still acting as though they've proven Dan Rather to be some kind of liberal demon under the command of General Hillary or some stupid shit like that.

Wow, this denial is even worse than I thought. In case you're not just feigning ignorance of the world around you and you are in fact as clueless as you appear, head on over to ratherbiased.com and check out dirty Dan's track record. Archives. Compare Dan to himself!

Kerry owes the Power Line blog a debt of gratitude for kicking the Swift Boat Liars off the front page.

Oh, you don't honestly think you've heard the last of them, do you? Maybe you really are that clueless.
posted by David Dark at 11:33 PM on September 20, 2004

At this point it makes most sense that the Bush campaign would be responsible for the false memo in the first place. Why? Because an obvious forgery serves well as a means for the President to avoid answering the obvious questions regarding his service in the National Guard, something he's spent the last 4 years doing.

It has been clear for days now (and CBS has admitted) that Burkett was the source of the memos - and you can't honestly be suggesting that that man is a Carl Rove drone can you? I mean, do people even bother to follow up on this stuff?

"Unless I misread the CBS statement, no one has declared the memos a guaranteed forgery, and certainly no one has identified a forger."

Actually a whole lot of people have... it's just probably no one you're willing to listen too.

Anyone with a pair of eyes and a lack of huge Kerry side bias can see that they are forgeries. There is a mountain of evidence. There are experts (the ones CBS hired) who are very concerned.

At this point to say "no one can prove they are forgeries" is a lot like saying "no one can prove that Carl Rove didn't replace my furniture with exact Republican copies!" It's silly. Hell, by that standard no one can "prove" that Iraq isn't full of invisible WMD's that live in an alternate dimension.

"Second of all, the Kerry stuff is laughable."

No, in fact it isn't. It is looking like CBS brokered a meeting between Burkett and the Kerry campaign in order to give them an edge. This led to the creation of the "fortunate son" stuff that has currently flopped like a lead balloon thanks to the outing of the forgeries.

"how "the left is giving CBS a pass" actually explained who the left was, and what exactly pass they are giving"

It would take too long to list. Allow me to amend. "A lot of people on the left" are giving CBS a pass. Hell, all you have to do is look at this very thread to see it.

"Fourth, I'm not sure what time frame you think "more and more" is going to be revealed"

Days, it's happening even now as the Burkett stuff is unraveled.

"But who made crooked paper the issue?"

So CBS broadcasting documents that they knew (and unless they were totally stupid they knew) were probable forgeries that they got from a known whackjob and completely failed to do any investigation of is a non story right? Right.

If thats the sort of thing peopel think is a "non issue" then I am even happer that it looks like people actually DO care.
posted by soulhuntre at 12:10 AM on September 21, 2004

"If I didn't mind Clinton, how can I fault Bush on this issue? I didn't then, and I don't now, but maybe you can explain it to me, mario. "

I can't explain it to you because you lack either the good faith or the brains to sustain an actual grown-up conversation, as your posting history clearly shows.

anyway, for the other readers:

ah, the one pro-Clinton wingnut... rara avis indeed. one in a million.

you know, what is self evident to saner individuals is a clear difference between the two men: Clinton and Bush are both draft-dodgers, the difference is Clinton didn't wrap himself in the flag to launch a militarisation of America / Christian Crusade that has led (as of now) to 1,000 GI's being slaughtered for Ahmed Chalabi's glory. Bush did.
Draft dodgers should at least have the decency to avoid playing John Wayne in 'Green Berets' for the sake of the cameras, but you're clearly unable to grasp that simple concept (and dont get me started on the coke/booze Bush thing). but then again, with you guys it's "Not About Fairness". it never was.

oh, another thing: my name is not "mario", David Dark. here's a surprise: not all Italians are called that.

also, African-Americans are not supposed to be called "boy".
posted by matteo at 1:17 AM on September 21, 2004

and what I wrote about Bush is true for the other Republican draft-dodgers like Cheney, Ashcroft, etc
posted by matteo at 1:18 AM on September 21, 2004

What Is Bush Hiding?--WaPo, today
...
First, except for John McCain, Republicans were conspicuously happy to have a front group spread untruths about John Kerry's Vietnam service in August and watch as the misleading claims were amplified by the supposedly liberal media. The Vietnam era was relevant as long as it could be used to raise character questions about Kerry. But as soon as the questioning turned to Bush's character, we were supposed to call the whole thing off. Why? Because the media were supposed to question Kerry's character but not Bush's.

And, please, none of this nonsense about how Kerry "opened the door" to the assault on his Vietnam years by highlighting his service at the Democratic National Convention. Nothing any candidate does should ever be seen as "opening the door" to lies about his past. Besides, Vietnam veterans with Republican ties were going after Kerry's war record long before the Democratic convention.

But, most important, there is only one reason the story about Bush's choices during the Vietnam years persists. It's because the president won't give detailed answers to the direct questions posed by the Times story and other responsible media organizations, including the Boston Globe. Their questions never depended on the discredited CBS documents.
...
posted by amberglow at 5:09 AM on September 21, 2004

Surely the simplest way to determine whether President Bush fulfilled his duties as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard is to ask him to produce his personal pilot's log book.
As a former Navy fighter pilot, I am aware that all military pilots are required to keep a log book that is a detailed record of the pilot's activities, both in the air and on the ground, while in uniform. Not only is each flight recorded by date, aircraft, mission and flight time, but also all ground drills, flight physicals, qualifications and training are entered as well. -- Did they keep logs in the Guard too?
posted by amberglow at 5:29 AM on September 21, 2004

From amberglow's link above:

But a guy who is supposed to be so frank and direct turns remarkably Clintonian where the National Guard issue is concerned. "I met my requirements and was honorably discharged" is Bush's stock answer, which does old Bill proud. And am I the only person exasperated by a double standard that treated everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life ("I didn't inhale") as fair game but now insists that we shouldn't sully ourselves with any inconvenient questions about Bush's past?

I met my requirements and was honorably discharged=I didn't inhale

heh
posted by y2karl at 7:14 AM on September 21, 2004

Draft dodgers should at least have the decency to avoid playing John Wayne in 'Green Berets' for the sake of the cameras, but you're clearly unable to grasp that simple concept.

There's nothing in your response worth mentioning, and this is no exception, but it's so completely brainless that I would like nothing better than to take a bright highlighter pen and immortalize your stupidity. Ciao.
posted by David Dark at 7:39 AM on September 21, 2004

posted by mr.marx at 7:47 AM on September 21, 2004

I would like nothing better than to take a bright highlighter pen and immortalize your stupidity.

D'oh! Looks like you dropped that highlighter pen on yourself, there, Dave.

And hey, while the rest of us are wondering about the end of Dan Rather's career, how come Chris Vlasto still has a job?
posted by soyjoy at 9:40 AM on September 21, 2004

Remember the old Clinton Hater epithet the Draft Dodger In Chief ?

Ha Ha!  /Nelson Muntz
posted by y2karl at 9:47 AM on September 21, 2004

> Is this issue resolved? Nope. Never will be. But it's certainly over anywhere except in Some Guy with a Website's comments section.

Or it could be just beginning as a major media story, as links are uncovered between the Unimpeachable Source, CBS, and the Kerry Campaign. After all, Unimpeachabe Source says he talked with Joe Lockhart, Max Cleland, and Howard Dean in last 45 days.

What source could be unimpeachable? Elliot Spitzer? Ralph Nader? Stephen Hawking? No, Billy Burkett



Waddya know, turns out he lied about where the docs came, but now says they came in an envelope from an unkown man fronting a nonexistant woman at the Houston Livestock Show.

Then Billy burned the originals.

Interesting imagery of Burkett convulsing during the interview, and then continuing the next day lying on the couch with a towel over his eyes.

Source Burkett has gone barking mad
posted by dand at 10:55 AM on September 21, 2004

dand, if Burkett was the source of the memos, and was constantly trying to get in contact with the Kerry campaign about the memos, doesn't that logically indicate that the Kerry campaign had nothing to do with them, not that there's a connection like you're suggesting? Why would Kerry's team give information to Burkett if he apparently spent all his time trying to give that information to Kerry?

Like I said, you can push this all you want- and don't get me wrong, this USA Today story makes CBS look very bad indeed, but it appears that claiming Kerry or his campaign had something to do with pushing the memos is almost as sensible as claiming that Karl Rove did.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:05 AM on September 21, 2004

XQ,

The links between the Kerry campaign and CBS and its 'story" should logically receive the same scrutiny as the links between the Bush campaign the the 527 "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth".

This will be true when the NYT publishes a chart showing the equivalent of "interlocking directorships" as they did for SBVT.
posted by dand at 11:28 AM on September 21, 2004

...or when such interlocking directorships begin to exist.
posted by soyjoy at 12:02 PM on September 21, 2004

John Kerry and the men of Swift Boat PCF-94

wtf?
posted by mrgrimm at 12:21 PM on September 21, 2004

wtf?

Wow, that is cracking me up for so many reasons. This is why I want to live forever, because there is so much beauty in the world.
posted by thirteen at 1:13 PM on September 21, 2004

The links between the Kerry campaign and CBS and its 'story" should logically receive the same scrutiny as the links between the Bush campaign the the 527 "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth".

Give me a fucking break. The Smearboats get busted left and right for lying. People in Bush's campaign are resigning left and right because of their ties with the Swifties (Ginsberg for example)...

As far as the ties between Kerry and the CBS stories: Ex-Guardsman Contacted Kerry Campaign

"...after getting through 'seven layers of bureaucratic kids' in the Democrat's campaign, he talked with former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland"

As a sane & rational individual that translates to me that he's not a part of Kerry's camp.

"... Burkett, who lives just outside of Abilene, wrote that no one at the Kerry campaign called him back."

Obviously they thought Burkett was a crackpot too.

Gee, Right Wing... the Left is REALLY sorry they didn't want to play along with the self-congratulatory circle jerk you guys had for three weeks (I guess they had more important things to talk about in 2004)... if it's any consolation, they thought the documents were fishy and deserved closer scrutiny.

CBS got sloppy and they fucked up. Still they tried to present a very balanced picture and hoped someone else would come forward and go on camera to vouch for the documents. No one did, so they did the right thing by no longer standing by them and apologized.

Even with half their credibility they're still above FOX.
(Personally I gave up on Network News years ago)

Now back to the Left Wing and Right Wing tin foil hat brigades trying to spin conspiracy theories out of this...
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 1:53 PM on September 21, 2004

did someone say GOP dirty tricks?

“In today’s New York Post, Roger Stone, who became associated with political ‘dirty tricks’ while working for Nixon, refused to deny that he was the source the CBS documents.

posted by amberglow at 2:11 PM on September 21, 2004

Looks like you dropped that highlighter pen on yourself, there, Dave

How so?

And hey, while the rest of us are wondering about the end of Dan Rather's career, how come Chris Vlasto still has a job?

Maybe because Chris Vlasto isn't exactly a household name, and we wouldn't even know whether or not he still had a job if Atrios didn't dig it up and tell us. Let me be the first to say fire him if it makes you feel better. But if you're going to equate this story to another network, both sides need to balance. Dig up all the right wing dirt on Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw, and you've got yourself a discussion.
posted by David Dark at 2:27 PM on September 21, 2004

Dan Rather is a hell of a gent,
But his critical skills were absent.
The memos were fake,
But come on, for fuck's sake:
He still lies less than our president.
posted by turaho at 2:32 PM on September 21, 2004

Well, I'd like an apology from all the people who were insisting that the memos weren't fake. Dan Rather apologised -- what about you guys?
posted by reklaw at 5:06 PM on September 21, 2004

> ...or when such interlocking directorships begin to exist.

RatherGate is truly becoming a waterloo for some myopic mefites!

Here are a few interlocking directorships to get you started:

10 of Viacom's 13 Directors Donate Primarily to Democrats, or Have Served in Democratic Administrations

Viacom CEO Redstore dumped $12 million in Viacom shares while Rather was stonewalling the Guard story. What did he know about the extent of CBS' folly the other Viacom shareholders didn't?
posted by dand at 7:25 PM on September 21, 2004

Redstone is 700 years old, and a multibillionaire. He dumps millions of dollars worth of shares everytime he needs a little walking-around money.
posted by amberglow at 7:35 PM on September 21, 2004

How so?

Like this. (I know, you may have to read it a few more times before it sinks in.)

10 of Viacom's 13 Directors Donate Primarily to Democrats, or Have Served in Democratic Administrations

Wow, yeah, that's certainly a smoking gun. It's exactly as though Kerry's own campaign lawyer was working for Dan Rather. Case closed, I guess.
posted by soyjoy at 8:23 PM on September 21, 2004

Well, I'd like an apology from all the people who were insisting that the memos weren't fake. Dan Rather apologised -- what about you guys?

*cough*XQUZYPHYR*cough*
posted by David Dark at 11:42 PM on September 21, 2004

So you mofo's gonna apologise for the lack of WMDs then?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 1:16 AM on September 22, 2004

*cough*XQUZYPHYR*cough*

Huh? I'm honored to be selected for your nonsense "demands" for something like that, Davey, but really... huh?

I suggested in earlier threads that CBS was much more of a credible network then they've proven themselves to be. I'm since proven wrong, but I'm not exactly wallowing in self-pity here. I'm not "sorry" for a single thing I said on this memo issue, in any thread, nor do I need to be.

You're the stalker, you can go scour through the numerous threads in which I made my case that this was a right-wing fueled smearfest in which no actual evidence has ever or will ever be given proving the documents were fake. (And there's currently more proof of that than "proof" that the documents were forged.) If you want, you can even find the ones where I acknowledged the documents could be fake. I'm sure you'll get right on that, because you're all about intellectual discourse. (You can borrow my highlighter if you want!)

I mean, I understand that you're just trying to make a ego-boosting snipe at me, and you want to score some kind of petty points or something, but I'm just ending up really confused. Are you saying that the overwhelming crux of the several dozen comments I've made in multiple threads has been that the documents are real, and nothing else? If so, I think you need some reading comprehension lessons.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:37 AM on September 22, 2004

*hands XQ a tissue* There, there, now, don't cry.

XQ, in his best Kerry voice: "I actually did make the case that the documents could be fake, after I made the case that they were real." Works every time.

Proof? The document is the proof, like a counterfeit bill is counterfeit without finding the guy who printed it and beating a confession out of him. But if you really need the confession, Killian's secretary said she didn't type the memo and that it was forged. Who are you waiting for? Snidely Whiplash? (I talk in cartoon metaphors so you might actually get it for once)
posted by David Dark at 2:08 PM on September 22, 2004

Penelope Pitstop.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:12 PM on September 22, 2004

Penelope Fontstop.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:15 PM on September 22, 2004

Times Rather 13.5pt
posted by ParisParamus at 2:16 PM on September 22, 2004

*hands XQ a tissue* There, there, now, don't cry.

Umm..... right. (pats DD on head.)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:42 PM on September 22, 2004

ummm.... yeah. (breaks XQ's wrist)
posted by David Dark at 6:37 PM on September 22, 2004

And that's why they call him David "Dark," folks. Ooooo, he's dangerous! Look out!
posted by soyjoy at 9:21 PM on September 22, 2004

For those who are really and truly interested in the subject, let me recommend this link as the current definitive writing on the matter.
Highly recommended reading.

Definitive?!

Here is the definition of "side step" (from the same site):

"Hey, all you heroic, right-wing blog sleuths! Here's a fresh opportunity for you to put all those celebrated document-verification skills to work again! Yes, another chance for fame and glory!"

Makes me laff.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:22 PM on September 22, 2004

And that's why they call him David "Dark," folks. Ooooo, he's dangerous! Look out!

No, they call me David Dark because that's what it says under all of my comments, dipshit.
posted by David Dark at 12:09 AM on September 23, 2004

It says dipshit under all your comments?

That explains a lot.
posted by longbaugh at 3:29 AM on September 23, 2004

That was reasonably witty, longbaugh!

I dips me lid.

(Reminds me of the "you eat pieces of shit for breakfast?!" joke in Happy Gilmour.)


Sorry, DD. :( Just commenting purely on comedic skillz0rz.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 4:54 AM on September 23, 2004

I'm still facing reality, but it's gettin' a bit fuckin' cold out here. Somebody wanna bring me a coffee or somethin'?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:50 AM on September 26, 2004