CBS says it can't vouch for Bush documents

[bob_barron]

CBS Says It Can't Vouch for Bush Documents

 

8 minutes ago

 

 

 

NEW YORK - CBS admitted Monday that it cannot vouch for the authenticity of documents used to support a "60 Minutes" story that questioned President Bush (news - web sites)'s Vietnam War-era National Guard service, after several experts denounced them as fakes.

 

The network said it was wrong to go on the air with a story that it could not substantiate.

[BUTT]

What a bunch of dumb fucks.

[Lil' Bitch]

Go Bush!

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I hope this is the end of Dan Rather.

[Guest Cerebus]

But there was a $20,000 typewriter that could make that small th in 1973! Doesn't that mean ANYTHING?

[kkktookmybabyaway]

Ha ha -- I don't care if you're pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. This is some funny stuff.

 

Were the documents really typed or written in crayon?...

[Guest MikeSC]

Damn, that Rove is diabolical.

-=Mike

[Downhome]

Someone should suffer for this greatly, an example needs to be set here to help prevent things like this from happening again. A simple "We made a mistake...I'm sorry" from Dan-o is not going to cut it as far as I'm concerned.

 

I've been hearing democrats saying that people make mistakes and that we should just accept this case as a mistake and only a mistake and move forward.

 

I have always believe, still believe, and will always believe that people in power at CBS, people with an obvious agenda, went through with this thing with a certain intent. I don't see how you can look at it otherwise when you look at the fact that everyone else looked at the documents and stated there was no way they were for real.

 

They might not have created them, but they looked at the memo and didn't ask too many questions, because they thought they had nailed Bush. Hell, just by CBS knowing who their "source" was should have been enough for them to doubt this bullshit.

 

Just last week CBS released a statement saying they went to all lenghts to make sure these were real, or something along those lines. They now need to held accountable for their actions, from Rather to whoever else. I'd also be willing to bed that the Kerry camp were aware of these documents, and again, did not question them as they should.

 

This is a very important issue to me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Someone should suffer for this greatly, an example needs to be set here to help prevent things like this from happening again. A simple "We made a mistake...I'm sorry" from Dan-o is not going to cut it as far as I'm concerned.

As was pointed out on NRO, if Rather is anything LESS than enraged and sits back from this, it'll simply demonstrate that he was very much a willing participant.

 

Rather has a chance to SHOW if he was involved or not.

I've been hearing democrats saying that people make mistakes and that we should just accept this case as a mistake and only a mistake and move forward.

Let's keep this in mind: The ONLY sources CBS had for this story are Ben Barnes, Kerry's vice-chair and one of the top Dem fundraisers, and Bill Burkett, who is WELL-KNOWN to have a major Bush vendetta.

 

THESE are the sources they trusted?

 

Can you imagine them doing this to Clinton, Gore, or Kerry?

I have always believe, still believe, and will always believe that people in power at CBS, people with an obvious agenda, went through with this thing with a certain intent. I don't see how you can look at it otherwise when you look at the fact that everyone else looked at the documents and stated there was no way they were for real.

The producer's father all but says she was out for blood on this one.

Just last week CBS released a statement saying they went to all lenghts to make sure these were real, or something along those lines. They now need to held accountable for their actions, from Rather to whoever else. I'd also be willing to bed that the Kerry camp were aware of these documents, and again, did not question them as they should.

It's sad that the internet had to do the fact-checking that CBS should have.

-=Mike

[Guest Shoes Head]

I'll be voting Kerry this election, but I'm glad to see our President vindicated here.

 

I hope this is the end of Dan Rather.

 

As do I.

[bobobrazil1984]

Dan Rather's a tool.

[SuperJerk]

Can you imagine them doing this to Clinton, Gore, or Kerry?

Just for the record, there were many questionable memos that arose when Clinton's draft dodging was being probed by the press in 1992.

 

 

Just saying.

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye]

A query, if I may. On these "news" shows like 60 minutes or W5 (canadian show...is that still on anyway?), do the people who present it on air ie: Dan Rather in this case actually do some work in investigating their stories? Or are they basically the voice of the writers/producers? If he's just the eye candy, then I think I'm missing how any blame can be shifted on to him for this.

 

As far as CBS goes, I'm personally filing this under "Network bends to special interest and high ranking officials' whims and gets burned"

[bobobrazil1984]

^ I think in this case, Dan Rather also has another position besides just on-air news anchor, as it relates to the actual news. I'm not sure though.

[Guest INXS]

The memos are obviously a load of bull shit but really I don't care. It's already fairly obvious that Bush shirked going to Vietnam (not that I blame him really, I mean I wouldn't have wanted to go).

 

Bush has this and Kerry has the Swift boat crap - it's par for the course in this dirty election.

[Highland]

I would also say he has a large influence in matters. I was watching this documentary last year about a foreign correspondent in the Middle East, and basically he was in charge of everything that was reported, except he oft times had to argue with his bosses over what is worth reporting or not.

I've also seen a similar documentary on newsanchors. Mind you, it was about Canadian anchors, but I am sure the work environment is much the same in the States.

[SuperJerk]

Dan Rather isn't just an anchor. He's a pretty important decision maker in the news room with a lot of power.

 

For years, whenever conservatives claim there's a liberal bias, they usually cite Rather and CBS as obvious examples.

 

They have a point.

[Jobber of the Week]

I have always believe, still believe, and will always believe that people in power at CBS, people with an obvious agenda, went through with this thing with a certain intent.

*starts folding you a tinfoil hat*

 

They might not have created them, but they looked at the memo and didn't ask too many questions, because they thought they had nailed Bush.

 

"Nailed" him? The accusations in these memos aren't anything near any kind of a smoking gun that sink Bush's re-election chances. Even if nobody ever raised questions about their authenticity, all they would do is confirm what most people generally accept.

 

I'd also be willing to bed that the Kerry camp were aware of these documents, and again, did not question them as they should.

 

And of course, it's up to the Kerry group to verify the documents and check Bush's record?

 

Ah, I forgot, Bush did so much to aid Kerry during the baseless SwiftVets accusations, Kerry ought to be returning the favor.

[Guest MikeSC]

Can you imagine them doing this to Clinton, Gore, or Kerry?

Just for the record, there were many questionable memos that arose when Clinton's draft dodging was being probed by the press in 1992.

 

 

Just saying.

Such as?

A query, if I may. On these "news" shows like 60 minutes or W5 (canadian show...is that still on anyway?), do the people who present it on air ie: Dan Rather in this case actually do some work in investigating their stories? Or are they basically the voice of the writers/producers? If he's just the eye candy, then I think I'm missing how any blame can be shifted on to him for this.

From what I understand, Rather basically controls the news division. Nothing happens without his consent.

-=Mike

[GreatWhiteNope]

CNN has a good discussion going right now on whether or not he should resign.

[Downhome]

*starts folding you a tinfoil hat*

Ok, I'll give you two choices.

 

1) CBS took the documents and liked what they saw and hoped that it was true so much that they refused to look into the reality of them. I doubt the people there are this stupid though, which only leads me to believe that they had doubt to start with...but they went with them in hopes that no one else would care enough to look into them.

 

2) CBS is, for sure, just full of a bunch of fucktards.

 

Either way, CBS should be held accountable for everything. Everyone who was involved in checking out their information, Rather, and anyone else who had anything to do with them being reported on.

 

"Nailed" him?

 

Yeah, nailed him. All that I've heard from the left since those fake papers hit the news it how big of a blow it was to Bush. The American people might not have bought into it like they wanted, but when they had the fake papers they thought it would be a hell of a blow to Bush, and they went with em.

 

I don't think they really nailed Bush either, but those at CBS did for sure. They wouldn't have ran with the fake information had they not thought that. They wouldn't have reported on it period.

 

And of course, it's up to the Kerry group to verify the documents and check Bush's record?

 

Of course not, but if people with ties to Kerry know about this information, there is no doubt that the insiders of the Kerry camp knew that these were going to hit the air. It isn't their responsibility to verify them, but they should have at least really sat down and thought about the truth of the matter one way or the other.

 

Have these to come out and be fake as we see now isn't hurting Bush, it's making Bush haters, and I'm sure to more than a few, Kerry himself, look like a less of a person. I don't think any less of Kerry, I'm just saying that this could hurt him.

 

Ah, I forgot, Bush did so much to aid Kerry during the baseless SwiftVets accusations, Kerry ought to be returning the favor.

 

I'm not going to get into that since it has nothing to do with this topic. I will say that the two situations are nothing the same...not at all.

[Guest MikeSC]

And of course, it's up to the Kerry group to verify the documents and check Bush's record?

 

Of course not, but if people with ties to Kerry know about this information, there is no doubt that the insiders of the Kerry camp knew that these were going to hit the air. It isn't their responsibility to verify them, but they should have at least really sat down and thought about the truth of the matter one way or the other.

 

Have these to come out and be fake as we see now isn't hurting Bush, it's making Bush haters, and I'm sure to more than a few, Kerry himself, look like a less of a person. I don't think any less of Kerry, I'm just saying that this could hurt him.

I don't suppose we should be asking how did the DNC know to launch "Operation Fortunate Son" the day after the memos hit on CBS --- since they claimed to not know a thing about them.

-=Mike

[Downhome]

Maybe they think "don't ask, don't tell" applies to these matters?

[Guest SideFXs]

Where is the apology to President Bush, in these statements from CBS and Rather?

 

This was a coordinated attempt to destroy Bush’s character between the liberal media complex, the 527 group, Moveon.org., and Democratic operatives, like Bill Burkett. If we find out the source that gave Burkett the forged documents, I am sure it will bring down the Kerry campaign once and for all.

 

Strange the timing of this CBS report and the ‘fortunate son’ Advertisement. Good point Mike.

 

Thank God we have the internet and many other journalistic sources.

 

Oh Rather is going to get the axe and it will be determined by good ole’ capitalistic means. Lost advertisement revenue will force the CBS share holders to demand Rather’s firing and reform CBS news reporting practices.

[Guest MikeSC]

Where is the apology to President Bush, in these statements from CBS and Rather?

Or at least an apology to the bloggers whom Rather castigated and insulted for the past nearly 2 weeks for doing the job that he and CBS were too damned lazy to do themselves.

This was a coordinated attempt to destroy Bush’s character between the liberal media complex, the 527 group, Moveon.org., and Democratic operatives, like Bill Burkett.  If we find out the source that gave Burkett the forged documents, I am sure it will bring down the Kerry campaign once and for all.

Burkett has lied, FOR YEARS, about his access to Bush's guard records. I wouldn't be shocked if he forged them himself and passed them off to the Dems via Cleland and Lockhart, who in turn gave them to CBS.

 

Of course, why CBS didn't question the memos more seems REAL suspicious.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week]

1) CBS took the documents and liked what they saw and hoped that it was true so much that they refused to look into the reality of them. I doubt the people there are this stupid though, which only leads me to believe that they had doubt to start with...but they went with them in hopes that no one else would care enough to look into them.

 

2) CBS is, for sure, just full of a bunch of fucktards.

#1 is a nice Republican fantasy but doesn't hold up to the journalistic process. #2 is much more likely.

 

Yeah, nailed him. All that I've heard from the left since those fake papers hit the news it how big of a blow it was to Bush.

 

Here's a hint to make yourself less like MikeSC: Don't talk about "The Left" because there's a large spectrum of many opinions out there when you say that. I've been saying since day one that these papers don't say anything critical or even overly damaging to Bush. In fact, that was part of the reason why I was initially so critical of the claims that they were forged, because they weren't nearly damning enough for any forger, not to mention CBS News, to put their necks on the line for it.

[Downhome]

#1 is a nice Republican fantasy but doesn't hold up to the journalistic process.

Of course it doesn't hold up to the journalistic process, which is why it would perfectly apply here.

 

What CBS didn't hold up to the journalistic process at all.

 

Here's a hint to make yourself less like MikeSC: Don't talk about "The Left" because there's a large spectrum of many opinions out there when you say that.

 

When I say the left I obviously don't mean everyone. I do know that a LOT of people was looking at this as a chance to just nail Bush. If you aren't one of them then that's great, you are smarter than many.

[Vyce]

Where is the apology to President Bush, in these statements from CBS and Rather?

 

This was a coordinated attempt to destroy Bush’s character between the liberal media complex, the 527 group, Moveon.org., and Democratic operatives, like Bill Burkett. If we find out the source that gave Burkett the forged documents, I am sure it will bring down the Kerry campaign once and for all.

 

Strange the timing of this CBS report and the ‘fortunate son’ Advertisement. Good point Mike.

 

Thank God we have the internet and many other journalistic sources.

 

Oh Rather is going to get the axe and it will be determined by good ole’ capitalistic means. Lost advertisement revenue will force the CBS share holders to demand Rather’s firing and reform CBS news reporting practices.

That's actually an important thing to point out, I believe, because if we didn't live in such a technologically advanced age where there was such a large volume of information being disseminated via the internet, than CBS would have likely gotten away with this - at least for a while.

[Guest GreatOne]

(Nelson mode on)

 

*HA*-HA!

 

(Nelson mode off)

 

Now if the Hawks end up mysteriously losing to either Miami or Buffalo this year I can say 'Hey they were on CBS can somebody verify that actually happened?'

[Vyce]

You make that post in jest, but honestly, can CBS really be trusted anymore, at least in the short-term?

 

Even if you don't accept the bias argument, then the only other option you have is to accept the fact that they were colossally inept to be completely fooled by false documents / information.

 

So can any news story they "break" in the near future be trusted? I would imagine that it would have to viewed with an incredibly critical eye; and quite certainly, any news story they may report about Bush, unless corroborated by - yes, I must say - more CREDIBLE sources, would have to be immediately suspect.