CBS
 

I could careless about this story, but I do find it funny that CBS would run a 60 minute story on documents that could be so easily disputed. What where they thinking?



[/quote]Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, called on the network to apologize, saying: "The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it."

[/quote]

I tend to agree.

Re: CBS
 

It is not at all apparent that the memos are faked. There are self-proclaimed "experts" saying they were created with MS Word, there are experts saying it is just as possible (and more likely) that a 1970s era typewriter was used. Just about everything else is a bunch of people with agendas of their own saying what they think a dead man would or would not have written. So while the evidence in the report seems shakey, it is not automatically a "hoax and a fraud".

I personally find it funny that the Bush Administration's PR wonks still haven't said much about his National Guard service other than he served. Claims that Bush got into the Guard through ties to the Old Boy's Club (or WASPs, or whatever term you prefer), was insubordinate and didn't show up for duties, etc., are anwered with simple claims that the accusations are false, as if that makes it all go away. It reminds me a bit of Monty Python...

So, just whacking the memos with a club doesn't make them go away. Show everyone that a man with a criminal record, a history of drug use, a less-than-stellar academic career, a failed businessman, and a background that suggests silver-spoon upbringing -- show everyone that a man like that is responsible enough to run the United States, then the nay-sayers go away. More than half the country, and a very significant portion of the world, believes that Bush is not responsible enough to run the country (the remainder presumably believe that he is reformed now, or else they are simply ill-informed to begin with). The only thing that will get him re-elected is if a large chunk of those who believe he is not responsible enough also believe that all other options are even less responsible. The jury is still out on that one... we'll find out in 49 days.

Re: CBS
 

Will, nearly every expert from Adobe through the Media Research Center have concluded that these documents are more likely than not forgies. In fact the mans own family has stated that they feel they are not authentic.

Additionaly, why should Bush talk about his service record. He has nothing to prove or clearify. Bush did not win his race against Gore because of his military record. No, the only reason this is an issue is because the DNC wants pay back for what happened with the Sift Boat vets. LOL, they - the DNC - denounce the Swift Boat vets actions and cry foul because Bush won't tell them to stop, and then they attack him on his TexANG record at the very moment CBS runs that story on the memo's. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Sounds very suspicious to me. And the funny thing is, Bill Clinton advised that they NOT make an issue out of Bush's service record and the DNC went ahead and did it any ways. Then they go on national television and say all kinds of derogatory things that they cannot back up. LOL. The DNC's "win at any cost, damn the ethics, just win" tactics will most likely win Kerry the Whitehouse, but honestly, its not right.

And we both know that we can swap nasty things to say about both Bush and Kerry's past discresions, so what do you say about us just leaving the mud slinging and character bashing to the people who get paid to do it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: CBS
 

Er, check MSNBC's recent articles about it. Some associates were discussing this, and saying that documents (maybe not the same as 60 Minutes'?) came from the White House, and show discussions between Air Force superiors discussing Bush's absences, incompetence, etc., and the pressure they were receiving to let it slide.

PvK

Re: CBS
 

Atrocities,

If you care less about this story why even bring it up!?

The Media Republican Group is hardly a non-partisan source especially since their mission statements explicitly states that they are a conservative group and they are proud of what Rush Limbaugh amongst others have to say about them.

Adobe had nothing to do with those fonts. The font used in the memos is Times Roman and was invented in 1931 for the NY Times.

Anyway I don't if these memos are fake the validity of the memos is totally irrelevant.

Fact: John Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam. He served, was wounded in combat, didn't like what he saw while over there and came home to address those issues. Thirty years later, SBVT and the Republicans are trying to crucify him and his record.

Fact: George Bush did NOT volunteer to go to Vietnam. He chose to serve in the Air National Guard and probably got in via special treatement. Thirty years later, portions of his Official Record, conveniently, come up missing.

Which raises the question, why after 30 years is John Kerry's record complete AND available for all to see AND FALSE & George Bush's record is not?

Re: CBS
 

Here's a question for you, why is the GOP Lending Ultra-Liberal Ralph Nader some lawyers?

Why is it none of the major issues have been defined except with some obscure and clever catch phrases.

The sad part is that kerry will not win and bush will have another four years in office. Like Reagan and his father, thier adminsitrations will end the same. With some of the largest tax hikes in history, a collapsed ecomony, and a series of wars, that while winning, prove fruitless and shows more weakness than strength.

Re: CBS
 

Well, all the reports I've seen say that it is merely possible that the documents are forgeries, which is a moot point, since a graphics suite on a computer is more than capable of re-creating a document in the style of a typewriter, flaws and all. If these documents were presented in a criminal case, it would be about 50/50 chance that a judge would admit them into evidence (depending on how solid the forgery arguement is), and in a civil case, they certainly would be admitted as evidence. Because it apparently cannot be proven one way or the other, the burden is on the Bush Administration to convince everyone that they are false, not simply claim it and expect it to be so.

Bush should talk about his service record because it is part of his character. Past history has a large influence on current behaviour, and that is a very important thing to consider when giving a person authority over one of the largest militaries in the world. Clinton recommended not bringing up military service because he knew that was an invitation for more attacks on Kerry because of his actions as a war protestor.

Kerry, as far as I have seen, has only been calling for Bush to release his full service records, like Kerry has already done. There hasn't been any attacks coming from Kerry along the lines of "Bush is a coward for joining the ANG instead of going to war with the rest of us". Other liberal Groups are calling it another form of draft dodging, and saying that Bush was a spoiled kid (most likely true) that had strings pulled to get out of an uncomfortable situation (evidence is leaning toward this). These attacks have also been coming for years, before Bush was even elected... not just when CBS runs a story on some memos about Bush's "service". The Swift Boat ads, by comparison, were flat out lies and slander (the doctor who "treated" Kerry, the men who "served with" Kerry but in a different area of Vietnam, etc) concocted by a group that is probably just pissed off that Kerry didn't think that war was such a great thing after returning. And I personally think anyone who believes war can be a good thing needs their head checked; this includes several in the Bush Administration, all of which, I may point out, have never been in a war.

And finally, I believe I've made it clear in other Posts that I don't like Kerry as President either. I think both of them are not good for the job, but as the current election system favors only one of the two getting the job, I would rather Kerry give it a shot than have Bush continue screwing things up (while being on vacation, no less!) for four more years.

Re: CBS
 

I thought it an interesting topic Rex.

I don't know about this. I don't listen to talk radio.

Adobe was primarily responsible for creating the Times Roman font for word processing. They compared the fonts to those of current word processors and such. They concluded that these documents were most likely made with a current day word processor. Read this MSNBC Artilce

I am sorry, but I don't follow you??

Actualy the people who are crucifying him are not the RNC, but the Swift Boat Vets. http://www.swiftvets.com/ From what I have seen, the Republicans are the ones who are being attacked by the DNC over Bush's record.

The word probably is not a fact. So aside from the assumed fact that Bush did not volunteer to go to vietnam, the rest of the statement is opinion. There is a big differance between fact and opinion. And in most cases that would be the truth.

John Kerry's record is not complete and available for inspection. I don't know if Bushes record is or is not.

Re: CBS
 

I really do not know. I do wonder however why CNN anker men are lending support, unpaid that is, to the Kerry camp. To me that would be a conflict of interest.

Good question. The next time I talk to Bush or Kerry I will ask them.

Reagons term ended with the end of the cold war. We were at war really with no one. And our economy was beginning to strengthn. Bush's term ended without incident. The berlin wall had come down, and our economy was on the verg of a boom.

The record is clear that Clinton road the economic wave started in the Reagon era and that Bush Jr. has inhereted Clintonomics. And for the record, it was Clinton who implemented the largest tax increase on a population in the history of the world. You can look that up if you wish.

Re: CBS
 

I tend to agree.

Indeed, my point exactly about Kerry. www.swiftvet.com clearly state that he is unfit to command. Who better to judge a man by his past service record then the men who served with him.

And Bush has been the president for four years now, so this debate about his service record is mute. It should have been an issue in 2000, but it was not. It is mearly pay back by the DNC over what the Swift Boat Vets had to say about Kerry.

Additionally, why knock Bush when Clinton out and out fled the country to avoid duty in Vietnam. That issue clearly cracks this arguements foundation that Bush is not fit to lead the country. And Clinton's decision to leave to avoid duty has never been disputed. In fact it worked for him in his 1992 bid for office.

So in essence, what the DNC is saying is, "What is good for the goose is not good for the gander." This kind of attitude really annoys me because it seems to be how the DNC thinks. Bush never attacked Kerry's military record, the swift boat vets did, and the DNC cried like little spoiled rotten children over it. Now, in pay back, the DNC is attempting to whip up a debate over Bush's service record at the very same time that CBS comes out with its story and more likely than not, fake documents.

Most people are not fouled by this text book example of a "COOKED" story designed by the DNC as pay back over the Swift Boat Vets stance against Kerry. It is cheap politics and mud slingling at its best. A brillant manuaver to be sure, but never the less one that clearly demonstrates why the DNC should be denied the White House for the next four years.

Clinton is a smart man and they should have listened to his recommendation. He did win two terms you know.

Kerry too has not released his full service records. But I agree, if Bush has not, then he should.

I think both men grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths. And yes, strings were pulled for bush, but no more than what has been done for other rich kids who went on to be senators and such. This really is a pointless arguement. It should have been an issue in 2000.

The authenticity of these memo's is in question. Therefore they should be viewed as a mute point until they can be proven real.

The book "Not Fit For Command" has been on the NY Best Sellors list for over two weeks now and Kerry has said nothing about it. He has offered no rebuttle to the statements in the book, nor has the DNC been able to question it.

The DNC has however, come out and attacked the SBV's and taken statements out of context. This has been proven and repeatedly embarassed the DNC.

Kerry made his service a part of his run for the office. Bush did not make his service an issue in the 2004 election other than to say that he is proud of his time as a TexANG'er.

I would like you to list names and proof that they think War is a good thing. Additionally, FDR had never served in a war nor had many of his administration. The same thing goes for Clinton. I think in this regard the point of view that because they have never been in a war disqualifies them to run the county is wrong.

I say this, if Kerry is elected, then we will most likely have him and his lawsuite happy vice president for eight years. Given Kerry's record, and the fact that he has been in office for over a decade and done nothing about the very issues he now says he will do something about, just announces that he is not the right man for the job.

If Bush wins, we only have to deal with him for four more years and then perhaps the DNC can offer us a valid canadate for President. We all know that Dick won't run, and if he did, he would not win.

I say pick the battle, go for 2008. Better to suffer four more years of Bush than eight years of Kerry.

Re: CBS
 

It's not on the Radio The MRG posted it on their website. Under "About Media Research Center" half way down the page

http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp

So you don't have to listen to talk Radio you can read it on their site.


Here's a good article that refutes all the people that says the memos could not have been real because they were made in windows.

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?se...=8&id=5542


Like I said the memos are irrevalent - to the fact that Bush got special treatment to get into the National Guard and then couldn't even fulfill his duty their and went AWOL.


Did you watch the Rebublican Convention? It was pure vitriol against Kerry. Some speakers even implied Kerry was a coward.

Umm Kerry's is
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0422c.html - These are ALL of the public records anyone that tells you otherwise is wrong.

where's Bush's?

Re: CBS
 

Richard Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
James Woolsey
Richard Armitage

All have been outspoken proponents of going to war with Iraq since Sept. 11, 2001, all believe in the "Clash of Civilizations" theory, where the Western nations will be at war with Islamic nations in a way similar to, or more violent than, the Cold War. And, with the exception of Mr. Armitage, all have never had any military experience. While this doesn't disqualify them from "running the country", their influence on strictly military matters is too great; I would much rather have people who have military service -- or even better, been in a war -- determining whether we should send kids into a warzone. These guys aren't calling for Special Forces to take care of things, they want massive amounts of ground forces, with only the most basic of training, to take control of everything. This is just asking for trouble, as we have seen already with incidents throughout Iraq.

So, while military experience does not in itself disqualify someone from leading the country, IMHO, it does when the person without experience is basing their platform on what they're going to use the military for. I want someone who has the ability for some empathy for my friends who are being sent to possibly die in the Middle East, and I want someone with some empathy for the common soldier controlling the possibility of a draft. Bush, and the people advising him, has neither.

Re: CBS
 

Thanks guys. This is good information. I don't know if I would trust Morons.org though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Any thanks for responding.

Re: CBS
 

Well now, looks like the proof that they were fake was at Kinkos in Texas. LOL - so ends Rathergate.

Re: CBS
 

Link? I'm searching for it on google, and all I'm seeing is that the memos were faxed to CBS from a Kinkos in Texas... hardly proof that they're fake. Proof that they are fake would be getting the computer that the memos were alegedly created with, and seeing the exact files. It's very likely that the memos could be faxed photocopies of originals (since most stories seem to indicate originals were destroyed), and I somehow doubt that "document experts" can determine whether something was made in the 1970s with a typewriter or in 2000s with a computer after going through at least two reproductions like that (scan/copy, then scan/fax). It doesn't really help that the only comments coming from the White House or the President are along the lines of "look where they came from, then you'll understand". Nobody denying the content, nobody saying that Bush was responsible and completed all his duties without help from more powerful individuals to modify his record. It almost seems like they're using the whole thing as a political tool to let the crazy ultra-right wing pundit types throw out the typical accusations of a "vast left-wing conspiracy" and the "Liberal Media". Which pretty much only accomplishes polarizing the country even more than it already is, and also has the side effect of being very good for Bush. When the opinion on a national level is as close to split as it can possibly be, the incumbent is almost always going to win.

Bleh.

Re: CBS
 

You got me.... I miss read the article - Sunday Sept 19th Columbian. (Page A10 Second collum of the news story "The Lessons Of Rathergate.") I apologize for the confussion.

From MSNBC - (Cleared things up.)

Virtually every document specialist and viable news source, except CBS, are calling the memo's "Modern Day Forgeries."

Now I am not questioning wether or not Bush received favorable treatment while in the TexANG, to think otherwise is just silly, what I am questioning are the memo's.

I have read and according to FOX, the rumor mill is ablaze that these memo's were dilibrately made to discredit CBS news and Dan Rather. I am sorry, but I find that laughable to say the least. CBS thought they had a smoking gun, it turned out it was not. They wanted to save face in the intensifying light of the truth, and they hurt their crediblity. These things happen. Remember the exploding chevy trucks that Date Line faked?

I have no doubts that CBS honestly felt that the memo's were real, or at least had a more likely than not that they are real mentality toward them with the view that if they were not authentic, that it would be up to the white house to prove it, and that was a huge mistake given all the Blogs out there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039473/
And an article in the Sunday Columbian ( http://www.columbian.com/ ) - by Beth Gillin.

And as much as I hate the thought, I feel Kerry has this election in the bag. (Thanks to brillant election tactics and under handed tactics and the support of the liberal left main stream media.)

Re: CBS
 

Ok, I couldn't find the article in the Columbian, but the MSNBC article clarified a few things. After reading through it, I would say that the inconsistencies that were brought up are not covered by duplication, and it is probable that the memos are partially or entirely fake (ie, parts could be from actual memos, other parts "reconstructed" in a computer). However, that doesn't mean that the content was false, as a lot of people are trying to claim; "if pigs fly, then bacon comes from pigs". Conclusion can be (and in the example, is) true regardless of the premise.

So, journalists are now focusing on the accusations made by the memos, rather than the memos themselves, which should have been the focus all along. The forgery stuff is secondary, and only served as a distraction; in the end, it is irrelevent as long as it is clear that favourable treatment was given. Some of the things disputed in the documents, like the Col. that was supposedly putting pressure to gloss over negative details being hon. discharged a year earlier, don't even seem like valid arguements to me. If he's retired, he can still influence things that happen in the ranks, it's not like retirement means he cuts himself off from all ties to the Guard. And so on...

I guess we'll see as the week goes on how this affects things, but it looks like a (after a fashion) Bush supporter is starting to be convinced of a Kerry victory, and a (after a fashion) Kerry supporter is convinced of a Bush re-election... things are going to be confusing for a while.

This strict two-party business is starting to get to me even more now though. Things are so polarized, and there doesn't seem much hope of things getting better, that a civil war and/or hostile takeover to a single party system almost seems plausible in 25 years. Scary.

Re: CBS
 

I Agree.

Re: CBS
 

Question. Why does what happened in the early 70's matter. Is it just to attempt to swing the middle class vote ? When I mentioned this stuff a few years ago. It was because I was so pissed off by that mission accomplished. And I tied it in with the cutting of benifits for veterns.

Is this a panic measure by the Dem's because they feel they are lossing the election ?

I just want to know why this is so important when there are far more important things to talk about in USA election.

Re: CBS
 

It's a character thing. In the past, Bush has (alegedly, but few actually doubt it) abused position and power to get away with things other people couldn't. And (alegedly) brag about it. Fast forward thirty years later, and he's doing pretty much the same thing with the Presidency. So, we are led to conclude, if it has happened before in the past, and it has happened recently, it is then reasonably safe to assume that the same abuses (erosion of civil liberties, tying "terrorism" into anything and everything, unilateral pre-emptive invasion for dubious reasons at high cost to average citizens, almost no crackdowns on corporate scandals, the list goes on...) and bragging ("Mission Accomplished" photo-op on carrier, the circus that was made around the capture of Saddam and the invasion of Iraq as a whole, "We're fighting evil!", and so on) will continue to happen in the future. With just what's happened recently, there's still a strong arguement to vote someone else. By showing a pattern of the same behaviour, they hopefully lock in that arguement so as to be irrefutable except by those blinded by partisan dogma. Meaning those people that think that all that stuff Bush did is great (I know they exist, I've met some).

What actually seems to be happening is that people end up hating one candidate and merely disliking the other. Both candidates' attempts to lift up their own image is on shakey ground, too, so it doesn't look like the hate/dislike combo is going to change in 43 days. And in the absence of any viable alternative, most people are going to vote for dislike just so hate doesn't get in.

Re: CBS
 

Look at what Clinton did. Given what Clinton did while president, Bush's character is pretty much above reproach when compared to that of Clintons. Clinton reduced the reputation of the white house to that of a brothel, he lied to congress, and we kept him around for eight years.

Having someone pull strings for you when your 18 or 19 years old is nothing new. I know that when I was 18 I made some pretty horrible choices in my life that I know now I would have done differently. If we accept your POV that a person’s character remains the same from youth through adulthood, then my character is just as rancid as it was 15 years ago.

I put to you that a person character is what they are at the moment, that their character is built by experience and life, not by the strings your dad pulls for you.

And about the fighting evil thing, ya its laughable now, but if Kerry is elected, rather when Kerry is elected, he wants to wage a kinder, gentler war against terrorism. Doesn’t that just send a shudder up your spine? Its Clintons foreign policy all over again. The same policies that got us into this mess.

I really don't believe that terrorist would be impressed with our kinder gentler side. IMHO they would view it as a weakness and really step up their reign of terror.

Then again I could be wrong and who knows, perhaps Kerry can bring the world together in a way never before done. I simply cannot see into the future, I can only predict possible happenstances. And honestly one of those predictions is an America one step closer to the grave, and several steps further away from the freedoms we now enjoy.

Ok that was self serving BS, but honestly I do fear what Kerry will do as president. I honest to God do.

But back on topic, what do you thing the eventual out come of this will be now that CBS is conceeding that perhaps the documents themselves are not authentic, even if the content might be?

Re: CBS
 

Can you please catalogue Bush's successes?

When will you hold Bush responsible for the fact that things have gotten worse in the Last 4 years?

Off the top of my head here what I see.

• - Rest of world views the US more negatively - more than ever before.
  - No resources or will left to tackle Iran or N. Korea.
  - Two bungled invasions.
  - Allies not willing to work with us on anything.
  - A weakened UN.
  - Israeli/Palestinians situation is as bad as it's ever been.
  - Russia is reverting back to a dictatorship.
  It goes on and on.

Anyway blaming Clinton doesn't hold water in my book.

Re: CBS
 

Rex all of these things you have listed my be true, but they are hardly Bush's fault.

And I was not blaming clinton except to say that his failed foreign policies, undisputed by the way, helped lead to our current terrorist problem.

And look at Russa, they too are having problems with terrorism, and that is neither Bush nor Clintons fault.

The world is an ever changing place. Friends today, enemies tmorrow, freidns the day after tomorrow. This is our world.

Now about that CBS thing? Do you think that this will have any effect on future "bomb shells?" I mean CBS thought they had a smoking gun, it turned out that it only burned them, so how do you think that will play out in the future? IE do you think the MSM (Main Stream Media) will learn from this or not? (Most likely not)

Re: CBS
 

I read an itneresting report today that stated that the military could not sustain another conflict and it would take decades to reconstitute the United States Armed Forces.

What kind of commander in chief leads his nation to war without kicking the economy into war production?

But, I must commend Dan and CBS. While kerry is most likely loose the election to bush, Dan and CBS sacrificed thier credibility in a very successful gambit to divert attention from the swift boat flip-flopping veterans and thier ads.

Re: CBS
 

Britain is going to start pulling troops out at the end of October:

Britain to cut troop levels in Iraq

This is not a sign of things getting better in Iraq. What you're seeing, and what you're going to steadily see, is every country that supported the US Invasion slowly start to pull their men & women out of Iraq, because they can see that the mess in Iraq isn't going to get any better, and they don't want any further part in it.

All this is going to do is put further strain on the American soldiers already there; soldiers that won't be comming home anytime soon if the Bush Administration is allowed to keep running the US as they have been.

Any American male or female between the ages and 17 & 30 better get their affairs in order, because the Draft is comming back.

Re: CBS
 

Klvino [ORB] please post links in support of your statement. Thanks.

Lets face it, there are people over there that just want to kill us and they will go on attempting to do so until all the white devils from the west are gone. Then they will once again turn on each other and beg for our help. Its a vicious cycle. Our lot in life I guess.

Re: CBS
 

katachoo... should be any USA citizen between the age of 18 and 30 whose income is less than 2 million dollars a year.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif