C-bs

[MisterMike]

While I'm sure most everyone has heard about this (and somehow chosen not to bringit up) I thought I'd finally post on the fake documents CBS aired about our President's ANG service.

I guess CBS is going to hold a press conference and while they claim they will explain that they still believe the contents of the documents to be true, they will fail to adress their negligence in researching the authenticity of the documents.

From this article, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&e=1&u=/ucac/20040916/cm_ucac/cbs

it seems CBS intentionally disregarded any opinion on the documents authenticity, while every web blogger out there could tell in 15 minutes that they were fakes.

According to ABC News, document examiner Emily Will was hired by CBS to vet the documents. But when she raised questions about the documents' authenticity and strongly warned CBS not to use the documents on air, CBS ignored her. Will concluded: "I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply."

Good going Dan.

All unsubstanitated accusations that the media has an agenda aside, *laughs* this, like the NYT Blair scandal is a pretty bad mark on mainstream news. It's also rumoured there may be an investigation on the grounds of Election Fraud by some congressional leaders.

 

[michaeledward]

Having looked at this issue; I understand there were 4 document specialists that reviewed the documents .. 2 felt they were accurate, 1 was neutral, 1 felt it was not accurate.

Perhaps, they research did not go deep enough. Perhaps, there is still more information to be heard from.

And we keep seeing new documents from Bush's Guard Service, after the President told Tim Russert that all of his records were released in 2000 and would be released again.

I think Dan Rather gets a pass on this error because he broke Abu Ghraib.

Mike

 

[MisterMike]

Well, the buck is being passed already.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - CBS News on Monday said it had been misled over the authenticity of documents it aired in a story challenging President Bush (news - web sites)'s military service and it was mounting an internal investigation.

"After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically," the network's top news anchor, Dan Rather, said in a statement. "I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers."

We've been mislead folks. Right from the horse's mouth. It was probably a setup by desperate Republicans and their whimpy 9 point lead in the Presidential Race looking to discredit CBS.

 

[PeachMonkey]

We've been mislead folks. Right from the horse's mouth. It was probably a setup by desperate Republicans and their whimpy 9 point lead in the Presidential Race looking to discredit CBS.

I certainly hope that the forgeries weren't created by anyone supporting Kerry.
It simply wasn't necessary.

Even if the documents CBS used are fake, it's clear that GW Bush:

-- Received political favors to get a position in a unit that wouldn't go to Vietnam
-- Skipped out on his required service in that unit

 

[deadhand31]

Right now, we don't know who made the documents. The person who said he supplied the documents to CBS is a former Texas National Guard member named Bill Burkett. However, he's not telling us who gave them to him. We don't know if it is a member of the Kerry campaign, or if it isn't. If it is, then it could be damning to Kerry. If not, well, then somebody will be shown to be a major BS factory.

As for it being clear that Bush pulled favors to get in the guard, well, it's kind of hard to say if it's true or not. The only guy who really vouches that he did presented a story saying he didn't help Bush get in the guard in '99. However, 5 years later, now he's a major financial backer for Bush's opponent. Now he's saying that he did help Bush. However, he doesn't seem to be able to provide documentation.

As for Bush skipping out on guard service, let's look at his records. He signed Form 180, which authorizes the Pentagon to release his military records. If he skipped out, and never made up the time, I'm sure the documents are there.

 

[michaeledward]

As for it being clear that Bush pulled favors to get in the guard, well, it's kind of hard to say if it's true or not. The only guy who really vouches that he did presented a story saying he didn't help Bush get in the guard in '99.

I am still waiting for the link to this claim. I have not seen it referenced anywhere other than your posts. Please assist.

Michaeledward

 

[deadhand31]

Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60319-2004Sep3.html

Basically, it's him saying that in his new interview, he purposely misled us in a testimony by saying that he did not get contacted by a family member about getting Bush into the guard. He basically says that he left out info that a family friend contacted him.

I find it odd, why is it that in 1999, he leaves information out when he's not involved with Bush's opponent, but now, in 2004, when he's a major financial backer for Kerry, he's stating that he didn't tell the whole story? If what he's saying is true, he's had over a decade to bring it out. I can't say that it's true, but I also can't say that it's not true. Given the current conditions, I'm rather skeptical, also considering that he hasn't provided any documentation.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't know ... I am not sure I see any contradiction.

1999 - He stated in a private sworn testimony that he was contacted by Sidney Adger to assist with getting George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.

2004 - He states that he got George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.

I don't see this following statement at all:

The only guy who really vouches that he did presented a story saying he didn't help Bush get in the guard in '99.

Perhaps you can clarify where you saw him say he didn't help Bush. And I don't understand how you can say that sworn testimony was given in the attempt to 'mislead us' (I am assuming you mean the voting public).

 

[Phoenix44]

Just two words:


Karl Rove

 

[rmcrobertson]

So Rather and CBS were sloppy and arrogant. Gee, there's a shock.

Gee, let's see...Texas' Lieutenant Governor does farvors for the children of the wealthy and powerful? Naw, no chance that THAT could possibly be true.

Which planet are some of you guys on? Can I have some of what you're smokin'?

Some things about all this just astonish me. First, the fact that NONE of Hizzoner's long history of being born with a silver spoon in his mouth so much as dents the conviction that he's jes' plain folks, watching out for the Little Guy.

Second, the fact that the guys now swearing up and down that this can't be true, and looking for every seam they can find, are pretty much the same guys who've been screaming about what a crook Clinton was--despite the fact that NONE of the stories about him are as well-documented, or go to the heart of his ability to be President, like this story does.

Third, the fact that most of this story can be made using DOCUMENTS RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE OR DIRECTLY BY THE MILITARY, such as the fact that the Prez checked the "I DO NOT VOLUNTEER TO SERVE OVERSEAS," box on his application to join the Guard.

Oh, and here's a snarky little tidbit, as long as we're on the topic of innuendo--Bush got suspended from the flight line after he refused to take a routine physical, right? White House has now put out three different explanations, right? Turns out--no connection established, but an interesting coinkydink--that this was within five months of the Guard's instituting a drug testing policy, which woulda been carried out during the physical.

But hell, no chance an idle rich boy wandering around Texas in the later 1960s woulda done no dope...

 

[MisterMike]

USA Today reported that the source of the documents, retired National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, agreed to turn them over to CBS if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

Aly Colon, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said if that is the case, CBS News may have crossed the line.

Well there's the real shocker...

"Credibility is critical to journalism and anything that a journalist does that raises questions ... about the integrity of the process undermines or potentially undermines the credibility of the report or the integrity of journalist bringing the report," Colon said.

In an interview with CNN, Kerry campaign aide Joe Lockhart confirmed that CBS had given him Burkett's number and he had had a conversation with Burkett days before the story aired.

Lockhart said they did not discuss the documents and Burkett used the conversation to offer his advice about how Kerry should run his campaign.

PFft!!!! (read: lie)

"I didn't know who the guy was. I talked to him on the phone for three to four minutes. That's the beginning and the end of the story," he said, adding that the Kerry campaign had "nothing to do" with the documents.

No, Burkett probably just told the campaign to look out for the upcoming Dan Blather report. Guess we'll never know.

 

[rmcrobertson]

CBS screwed up. Big time.

And here's a question: did they get the story wrong, or was it that one aspect of their documentation was done in a monumentally stupid and arrogant fashion?

Here's another: if they have to apologize and maybe fire people over absurdly-bad reporting, and what looks like some lying about important things--why should the President, who did pretty much the same on different topics, not lose his job?

Or do we have a higher standard for news stories than we do for starting wars?

 

[MisterMike]

Yes, but has the President really been caught in a lie? We had lots of information going around about WMD's, yellow cake, and all the rest. Can we say without a doubt the President knew this was false before going into Iraq, or just that he cherry-picked the evidence that suited his "needs"?

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, but has the President really been caught in a lie? We had lots of information going around about WMD's, yellow cake, and all the rest. Can we say without a doubt the President knew this was false before going into Iraq, or just that he cherry-picked the evidence that suited his "needs"?

With whom does the buck stop?

In my opinion, if the President didn't know, he should have known. The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was certainly full of caveats that were never mentioned by President Bush, Vice President Cheny, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Assistant Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, National Security Advisor Rice, et al.

Part or the problem might have been that neither President Bush or National Security Advisor Rice actually read the 50 some odd page National Intelligence Estimate.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Yes, but has the President really been caught in a lie? We had lots of information going around about WMD's, yellow cake, and all the rest. Can we say without a doubt the President knew this was false before going into Iraq, or just that he cherry-picked the evidence that suited his "needs"?

Personally, I think both would be equally blameworthy. Whether he outright knew that what he was saying was BS or intentionally ignored factors so that he could claim plausible deniability, he's still lying to the public; both situations involve intentional deception. The only defense for him that I can think of is that all the information that he was given was flawed, in which case he may be a moron, but not a liar.

 

[MisterMike]

Additionally today, CBS was fines $550,000 for the Janet Jackson Boobergate fiasco. Kind of a slap on the wrist, considering the size of the media giant. I do not think it will deter future occurences such as that.