CBS tipped off DNC about Bush Guard story

[teke184 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...rry_1&printer=1

 

Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer

 

1 hour, 43 minutes ago

 

 

NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry (news - web sites) said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush (news - web sites)'s National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.

 

 

AP Photo

 

 

 

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

 

 

"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."

 

 

Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.

 

 

Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.

 

 

CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.

 

 

Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not.

 

 

Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.

 

 

Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.

 

 

Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

 

 

 

While this may not be the smoking gun that people were expecting, it certainly dims Kerry's already dismal chances of winning in November.

 

Getting caught in bed with the media in a forged-documents scandal will finish him off, even though he's doing enough on his own to deserve a Bush-whacking on Election Day.

[Guest MikeSC]

All this for a story the Dems like to portray as "no big deal" and "obviously true, despite the memos".

 

The DNC's Watergate-style electoral scandal. I'm loving it.

-=Mike

[Downhome 0]

Who predicted this earlier?

 

*This guy!*

[Guest SideFXs]

This is going to bring a white-hot DNC meltdown. Rather and CBS know the source, but they know what will happen if it gets out.

 

Finally there will be proof of the connection between the liberal media and the whacko liberals in the democratic party.

 

And Dan Rather gave it to all of America to see

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

HOLY SHIT!

 

He talked to that guy

 

GIVE HIM THE CHAIR

 

It seems that Lockhart and Cleland have one thing on Rather.. I don't think they fell over themselves for his one forged memo and the rest of his stuff

[Jobber of the Week 0]

While this may not be the smoking gun that people were expecting, it certainly dims Kerry's already dismal chances of winning in November.

 

Getting caught in bed with the media in a forged-documents scandal will finish him off, even though he's doing enough on his own to deserve a Bush-whacking on Election Day.

Wow, you're real non-partisan. I'd compliment you on the Mike-esque title, except that it was too informative to count. But what you lacked in vague commentary you made up with acidic bullshit.

 

I don't think this means anything, even if they passed them on directly to CBS, unless they knew it was forgeries.

[teke184 0]

This goes beyond the "were they forgeries or not" business.

 

It was dirty pool for a major news organization to go to a campaign 60 days out from an election and say "We've been preparing a story on your opponent about X... maybe you should talk to our source, Y, about it."

 

In effect, they were saying "We're running with this, so you may want to be prepared so you can capitalize on it."

 

 

If the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans would NOT have gotten the tip-off that the Dems got.

[snuffbox 0]

Remember when Dan Rather sent young Americans to war under false prestenses as well?...

 

He really needs to stop this behavior before someone gets killed.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

random question..

 

have you guys been able to find anything forced about any memo other than the CYA memo?

 

I'd imagine "forged memos" refers to more than 1 memo

[Vyce 0]

Remember when Dan Rather sent young Americans to war under false prestenses as well?...

 

He really needs to stop this behavior before someone gets killed.

Man, you don't even come close to comprehending the issue of this thread, do you.

[Guest MikeSC]

HOLY SHIT!

 

He talked to that guy

 

GIVE HIM THE CHAIR

 

It seems that Lockhart and Cleland have one thing on Rather.. I don't think they fell over themselves for his one forged memo and the rest of his stuff

Hmm, let's review.

 

A man gave CBS faked memos in order for them to put him in contact with the Kerry campaign. That, by itself, sounds REAL suspicious.

 

So, the peddler of the forgeries is contacted by the Kerry campaign at the request of CBS? Nope, no smoke with THIS fire.

 

The DNC happened to launch their MASSIVE campaign blitz about Bush's guard service the day the memos hit. Nope, nothing THERE, either.

 

And we know that Burkett sent some materials to Cleland to use with the campaign. Any guesses as to what the material is? Any chance of it being, oh, a bunch of forged memos (since CBS had a ton of forged memos apparently, according to one of their experts)

 

Meanwhile, the Bush campaign and SBVT sharing a lawyer was definite proof of collusion to you.

 

Remember those days?

 

When sharing a lawyer meant that you, unquestionably, were in cahoots --- well, provided you weren't a Democrat.

 

Weird how that works.

Wow, you're real non-partisan. I'd compliment you on the Mike-esque title, except that it was too informative to count. But what you lacked in vague commentary you made up with acidic bullshit.

 

I don't think this means anything, even if they passed them on directly to CBS, unless they knew it was forgeries.

OK, try and follow us:

 

CBS IGNORED experts who warned them that major questions would arise should they run the piece. Completely ignored them because they had the utmost confidence in their sources.

 

Their sources, apparently, were Bill Burkett and Ben Barnes, two men who, to be generous, have MASSIVE axes to grind.

 

Burkett claimed to give them the documents so they would get the Kerry campaign --- namely, Joe Lockhart --- to contact him. We also know he sent Cleland some materials. We ALSO know that the DNC, I suppose in one helluva coincidence, launched a massive ad campaign alongside with the forged memos that they claim to have had no idea about.

 

This doesn't seem even REMOTELY suspicious to you?

Remember when Dan Rather sent young Americans to war under false prestenses as well?...

 

He really needs to stop this behavior before someone gets killed.

Man, and the opponents of CFR were worried that the press would have too much power close to the election to influence the outcome.

 

I can only imagine your outrage if this happened to Kerry.

 

But, hey, things aren't that bad.

 

Kerry, according to recent polls, is presently up by 5.

 

Of course, that's in New York.

random question..

 

have you guys been able to find anything forced about any memo other than the CYA memo?

 

I'd imagine "forged memos" refers to more than 1 memo

All FOUR were fakes. CBS verified that today. And they had "tons" more, according to one of the experts they ignored before the story hit.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

The CYA is the most famous one debunked but experts such as Emily Will had serious doubts about all the documents shown to them before CBS aired them.

 

In fact, there was a document that CBS showed to Will that didn't make it on the air, so there's more out there than they're saying.

 

(Note: I don't have a link for these because there's too damn much on this story to sift through)

[teke184 0]

BTW,

 

 

Jobber, I don't claim to be fully impartial. I'm a right-leaning independant who feels that Bush will do a much better job than Kerry on the related subjects of Iraq, national defense, and homeland security.

 

That alone can be determined just by looking at Kerry's senate record over the years, in which he voted against just about every major weapons program the Pentagon has deployed over the past 20 years as well as skipping many of his committee's meetings on anti-terrorist activity, including a FULL YEAR of them after the first WTC attack.

 

 

 

On top of that, I've gotten incredibly perturbed with Kerry considering that he isn't showing presidential traits while handling situations that go against him, such as the Swift Boats.

 

Bush didn't complain about Kerry when MoveOn.org and others were slandering him and Kerry didn't say "boo" about it. However, when the Swift Boat veterans, 200 Vietnam Veterans who put together commercials on a shoestring budget, begin attacking Kerry, Kerry flips out and starts accusing Bush of using them as a covert means of attacking him.

 

 

Combine that with Bush's constant praise for Kerry's service while Kerry goes out of his way to disparage both Bush and Cheney and you get an image of someone who likes to dish things out but doesn't like to take them.

 

That doesn't sit well with me, which is why I'm enjoying his campaign disintegrating due to the simple fact that Kerry has no consistancy to him. He changes issues every week or two, depending on what he thinks will help him. He also changes position sometimes within the same sentence, which is embarassing as all Hell. ("I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is a big example but not the only one of his inconsistancies.)

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

one forged memo = forged memos

 

like

 

one flat tire = flat tires

 

This is such a red herring. Not to bash the quality of the herring, of course.

[Guest MikeSC]

one forged memo = forged memos

 

like

 

one flat tire = flat tires

 

This is such a red herring. Not to bash the quality of the herring, of course.

Too bad CBS admitted ALL of them were forgeries.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

CBS IGNORED experts who warned them that major questions would arise should they run the piece. Completely ignored them because they had the utmost confidence in their sources.

And it was very stupid of CBS to run the piece without any further analysis.

 

Their sources, apparently,

 

In other words, "I'm jumping to conclusions to craft a neat tale."

 

Burkett claimed to give them the documents so they would get the Kerry campaign --- namely, Joe Lockhart --- to contact him. We also know he sent Cleland some materials. We ALSO know that the DNC, I suppose in one helluva coincidence, launched a massive ad campaign alongside with the forged memos that they claim to have had no idea about.

 

This doesn't seem even REMOTELY suspicious to you?

 

That's very weak at best and doesn't hold water at worst. Here's how I see it:

 

One of the situations happened:

 

A) CBS receives documents, Kerry campaign has nothing to do with it: CBS looks really stupid for running news on forgeries. No harm done to Kerry campaign.

 

B) CBS receives documents from Kerry campaign or DNC, which believes they're legitimate: CBS looks really stupid for running news on forgeries AND for trusting a political campaign without doing further analysis of their own. Negligable harm to Kerry campaign.

 

C) CBS receives documents from Kerry campaign or DNC, which knows they're fake and intentionally passes them along to destroy President Bush: This is really fucking evil, and the document's flaws are so amateurish that I can't really imagine it happening because surely they'd have done better. CBS looks as stupid as they did in Plan B, and Kerry's campaign is dead.

 

If I was to put money down on one of these, I'd bet on A with a side bet on B. C is just completely fucking ridiculous, but I know you'll claim that it's really the truth because you really want the Democrats to look bad.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That alone can be determined just by looking at Kerry's senate record over the years, in which he voted against just about every major weapons program the Pentagon has deployed over the past 20 years

What an independent you are! I mean, instead of actually pay attention to the facts and come out with an independent analysis, you swallow talking points and soundbytes by Pro-Bush people.

 

FactCheck took apart that whole arguement in their teardown of Zealot Miller's speech. Basically, everybody from Cheney to President Bush was cutting this spending after the Cold War was over. There was no threat to be seen and no need to keep manufacturing arms at the level that we were when we were fighting the Soviets.

 

as well as skipping many of his committee's meetings on anti-terrorist activity

This was also taken apart long ago. The skipped meetings always mentioned are public meetings. His appearance at private meetings, where these matters and others are discussed behind closed doors, is much more reliable and it's not uncommon for Senators to miss public meetings going over things they've already heard before. They're busy people.

 

Bush didn't complain about Kerry when MoveOn.org and others were slandering him

 

I'm not sure about where all this slander came from. The most waves MoveOn made was calling for Rumsfeld to resign in the middle of the Abu Gharib firestorm. The way you talk about it you make it sound like the TV commercials shouted "GEORGE W BUSH EATS BABIES."

 

when the Swift Boat veterans, 200 Vietnam Veterans who put together commercials on a shoestring budget, begin attacking Kerry, Kerry flips out and starts accusing Bush of using them as a covert means of attacking him.

 

I also thought it was bad to make a public spectacle of it because it distracted from the real issues.

 

Combine that with Bush's constant praise for Kerry's service while Kerry goes out of his way to disparage both Bush and Cheney

 

And Bush and Cheney haven't gone out of their way to disparage Kerry?

 

"That's a lot, even for a Senator from Massachusetts."

"America sees two John Kerry's."

 

And let's not forget that Cheney politicized the issue of terrorism by saying, with the world (terrorists included) watching, that Kerry would allow terrorists of having an easier time. This after all that time talking about how we can't allow ourselves to show weakness and have to maintain a strong united front on terrorism and can't buckle under to fear of another attack because then the terrorists have won. And then they went and politicized it.

 

The attacks come out to about a similar number, I'd guess, although Bush always uses "My Opponent" instead of a name when talking about Kerry.

 

("I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is a big example but not the only one of his inconsistancies.)

 

In other words, "I can't think of one so I'll just choose the one everybody makes fun of." That was a bad move, you'd actually have some ammunition here except that you chose the most deconstructed arguement of this election.

 

President Bush voted against the $87 billion before he voted for it. He didn't want the money to come out of his precious tax cuts. That would have been a display of fiscal responsibility. Bush has a track record of prefering credit card economics where he can lower taxes and raise spending and just leave a clusterfuck behind for the next poor soul to clean up. He insisted they not come out of the tax cut, which Kerry was against but would have voted for if it needed his vote to pass. It passed easily, and since his vote was essentially worthless, he voted against it as a message against Bush's destructive economic policy.

[Guest Cerebus]

I'm still REAL skeptical that Bukett provided these documents. We're talking about a guy who exposed dozens of fake records and falsified records. One would assume a guy like that would see right through these fairly crude forgeries.

 

Edit: Turns out I'm completely wrong.

[Guest MikeSC]

That alone can be determined just by looking at Kerry's senate record over the years, in which he voted against just about every major weapons program the Pentagon has deployed over the past 20 years

What an independent you are! I mean, instead of actually pay attention to the facts and come out with an independent analysis, you swallow talking points and soundbytes by Pro-Bush people.

 

FactCheck took apart that whole arguement in their teardown of Zealot Miller's speech. Basically, everybody from Cheney to President Bush was cutting this spending after the Cold War was over. There was no threat to be seen and no need to keep manufacturing arms at the level that we were when we were fighting the Soviets.

And that disproves Kerry voting against them how, exactly?

as well as skipping many of his committee's meetings on anti-terrorist activity

This was also taken apart long ago. The skipped meetings always mentioned are public meetings. His appearance at private meetings, where these matters and others are discussed behind closed doors, is much more reliable and it's not uncommon for Senators to miss public meetings going over things they've already heard before. They're busy people.

76% of Senate Intel Committee meetings is no big deal? Okay. :rolleyes*

Bush didn't complain about Kerry when MoveOn.org and others were slandering him

 

I'm not sure about where all this slander came from. The most waves MoveOn made was calling for Rumsfeld to resign in the middle of the Abu Gharib firestorm. The way you talk about it you make it sound like the TV commercials shouted "GEORGE W BUSH EATS BABIES."

Just that "he knew". Nothing slanderous there.

Combine that with Bush's constant praise for Kerry's service while Kerry goes out of his way to disparage both Bush and Cheney

 

And Bush and Cheney haven't gone out of their way to disparage Kerry?

 

"That's a lot, even for a Senator from Massachusetts."

"America sees two John Kerry's."

Never his military service.

And let's not forget that Cheney politicized the issue of terrorism by saying, with the world (terrorists included) watching, that Kerry would allow terrorists of having an easier time.

As opposed to the months of Kerry's "Bush's policies made us less safe"?

This after all that time talking about how we can't allow ourselves to show weakness and have to maintain a strong united front on terrorism and can't buckle under to fear of another attack because then the terrorists have won. And then they went and politicized it.

My mistake. Kerry never said "Bush's policies made us less safe", did he?

("I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is a big example but not the only one of his inconsistancies.)

 

In other words, "I can't think of one so I'll just choose the one everybody makes fun of." That was a bad move, you'd actually have some ammunition here except that you chose the most deconstructed arguement of this election.

 

President Bush voted against the $87 billion before he voted for it. He didn't want the money to come out of his precious tax cuts. That would have been a display of fiscal responsibility. Bush has a track record of prefering credit card economics where he can lower taxes and raise spending and just leave a clusterfuck behind for the next poor soul to clean up. He insisted they not come out of the tax cut, which Kerry was against but would have voted for if it needed his vote to pass. It passed easily, and since his vote was essentially worthless, he voted against it as a message against Bush's destructive economic policy.

Which ignores that NO bill is perfect and you ALWAYS have to vote for provisions you do not like.

 

Unless Kerry will state that Robert Byrd's pork projects aplenty were good and necessary.

QUOTE

Their sources, apparently,

 

In other words, "I'm jumping to conclusions to craft a neat tale."

Or going with the ONLY info CBS has admitted to up to this point.

C) CBS receives documents from Kerry campaign or DNC, which knows they're fake and intentionally passes them along to destroy President Bush: This is really fucking evil, and the document's flaws are so amateurish that I can't really imagine it happening because surely they'd have done better. CBS looks as stupid as they did in Plan B, and Kerry's campaign is dead.

 

If I was to put money down on one of these, I'd bet on A with a side bet on B. C is just completely fucking ridiculous, but I know you'll claim that it's really the truth because you really want the Democrats to look bad.

Like it or not, "C" looks progressively more likely.

 

We know that Burkett and Barnes are the ONLY people CBS has admitted to asking for verification --- on the surface, that is plain idiotic.

 

We KNOW that Burkett has spoken with both Cleland and Lockhart about the memos.

 

We know CBS didn't get them until Sept. 3.

 

And we know it makes virtually no sense, whatsoever, that CBS would just accept anything from Burkett, who is a loon.

 

Thus, SOMEBODY more had to vouch for the memos, considering that their EXPERTS wouldn't do so. Burkett and Barnes are too out of it to be considered good sources.

 

So, who ELSE vouched for them that CBS would listen to?

 

And, you aren't even the LEAST suspicious of how the DNC would know that the memos were being launched, so they could launch "Operation Fortunate Son" at the same time?

 

You're crossing the line from "benefit of the doubt" to "unbelievably gullible".

-=Mike

...Any guesses as to who said this? "In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn't do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And that disproves Kerry voting against them how, exactly?

It doesn't disprove it, it just puts it in proper context. You guys have been using this vote to paint him as some kind of pot-smoking anti-war flower child who loathes the military. The simple facts are that after the Cold War we didn't have anything on the level of the Soviet Union that present a threat to us. There was nothing out there that looked like it had the means of destroying the country. And so military manufacturing and development budgets were slashed, since we wouldn't need more arms when what we had left over was plenty enough.

 

76% of Senate Intel Committee meetings is no big deal? Okay. :rolleyes*

 

Again, PUBLIC meetings. His track record on the closed-door meetings is much better.

 

Just that "he knew". Nothing slanderous there.

That was saying that he was aware of the memo. We've discussed that to death. You said Bush didn't know what to do, I said he should have done something, anything other than "nothing." There's logic to both arguements and we simply have to agree to disagree.

 

 

Never his military service.

 

That's just one part of his profile that they've largely ignored while hammering on the rest of it.

 

As opposed to the months of Kerry's "Bush's policies made us less safe"?

 

Is that the same as saying there'd be another attack?

 

My mistake. Kerry never said "Bush's policies made us less safe", did he?

 

Again, he didn't pander to fear of another terrorist attack. He said they've generally left us less safe, which is interpreted by the listener, but I believe it to mean that anti-American thoughts abroad have increased in the past four years. I will point out that I'm not a big fan statement either, but it certainly less direct than the whole "we're gonna get hit again if he's elected" thing.

 

Unless you can point out where he said that Bush has left us more likely to get another attack, in which case I'll withdraw this.

 

Which ignores that NO bill is perfect and you ALWAYS have to vote for provisions you do not like.

Again you missed the point where his vote was simply symbolic and the measure had enough support to pass.

 

And, you aren't even the LEAST suspicious of how the DNC would know that the memos were being launched, so they could launch "Operation Fortunate Son" at the same time?

That's it. You can no longer call me crazy for my Halliburton speculation.

 

You're crossing the line from "benefit of the doubt" to "unbelievably gullible".

 

Naw, I just believe such a smear tactic would be, you know, harder to spot out.

 

...Any guesses as to who said this? "In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn't do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns."

 

Yup, and I've fully realized now that he is both a hypocrite and a moron as well.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

On the basis of "wanting to talk to someone" equals "collusion".. I am issuing a warrant for the arrest of Jodie Foster

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

LOLOLLOL KERRYS GOING DOWN BECUZ OF THIS!@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Anyone seen this terribly legit SCANDAL!~ getting top billing on any news station? All I've seen is a catergorical denial from Lockhardt and very few people blowing this out of proportion like Teke and his tin foil hat.

 

CBS's producer called Lockhardt for a comment. Hot damn! AN INTERN SCANDAL THREATENS TO RAVAGE THE KERRY CAMPAIGN!

 

What the fuck, seriously. This story (and your pathetic reactions to it) reeks of Drudge.

[Guest MikeSC]

And that disproves Kerry voting against them how, exactly?

It doesn't disprove it, it just puts it in proper context.

 

 

"The proper context"?

 

You forget one little problem --- Bush & Cheney are already known commodities. They don't have to prove that they should be in charge.

You guys have been using this vote to paint him as some kind of pot-smoking anti-war flower child who loathes the military. The simple facts are that after the Cold War we didn't have anything on the level of the Soviet Union that present a threat to us. There was nothing out there that looked like it had the means of destroying the country. And so military manufacturing and development budgets were slashed, since we wouldn't need more arms when what we had left over was plenty enough.

He opposed weapons systems DURING the Cold War, too. He supported a nuclear freeze during the Cold War.

76% of Senate Intel Committee meetings is no big deal? Okay. :rolleyes*

Again, PUBLIC meetings. His track record on the closed-door meetings is much better.

Go ahead and try and prove it.

 

If you cannot, then you're simply talking out of your ass.

Never his military service.

That's just one part of his profile that they've largely ignored while hammering on the rest of it.

It is, you know, A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. Wasn't aware that discussing his, you know, record was "out of bounds".

 

As opposed to the months of Kerry's "Bush's policies made us less safe"?

Is that the same as saying there'd be another attack?

Actually, yes, it is. If we're "less safe", we're more open for another attack. You can spin Kerry's words if you like.

My mistake. Kerry never said "Bush's policies made us less safe", did he?

Again, he didn't pander to fear of another terrorist attack

Do you know how much bullshit that comment is?

He said they've generally left us less safe, which is interpreted by the listener, but I believe it to mean that anti-American thoughts abroad have increased in the past four years.

Seeing as how it's always said in relation to terrorism, your point is disingenuous.

I will point out that I'm not a big fan statement either, but it certainly less direct than the whole "we're gonna get hit again if he's elected" thing.

What Cheney said is NO different than the Democratic mantra for the last few months.

Unless you can point out where he said that Bush has left us more likely to get another attack, in which case I'll withdraw this.

Bush's policies made us less safe. You cannot possibly be so blinded as to attempt to parse the statement.

Which ignores that NO bill is perfect and you ALWAYS have to vote for provisions you do not like.

Again you missed the point where his vote was simply symbolic and the measure had enough support to pass.

Your basing your assumptions on nothing more than your assumptions. You have zero evidence or proof of anything.

And, you aren't even the LEAST suspicious of how the DNC would know that the memos were being launched, so they could launch "Operation Fortunate Son" at the same time?

That's it. You can no longer call me crazy for my Halliburton speculation.

Because it's COMMON for a NETWORK to put a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN in contact with somebody. You often see political parties base MASSIVE campaigns on stories that they claim to know nothing about.

 

No POSSIBILITY of co-ordination here. No sir.

 

Happens ALL of the time.

 

You'd be committing hari-kari if FNC did this.

 

Thank God Bush is demanding Schieffer be removed from the debates. Nobody from CBS should be involved whatsoever with this campaign --- nor should Bush EVER speak to them again for the remainder of his following term in office.

 

CBS has proven itself to be what the left loves to pretend FNC is.

You're crossing the line from "benefit of the doubt" to "unbelievably gullible".

Naw, I just believe such a smear tactic would be, you know, harder to spot out.

Gee, idiotic decisions have NEVER been done before.

 

Heck, Watergate was a brilliantly conceived plan. No chance of that failing. I guess the DNC had to be behind it to make Nixon look bad.

...Any guesses as to who said this? "In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn't do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns."

Yup, and I've fully realized now that he is both a hypocrite and a moron as well.

Even cuter, this came 9 days before he reported on the memos as if they were the biggest story he's ever uncovered.

 

Well, I suppose he's right, actually. The memos ARE an unbelievably big story.

 

Just not in the way the Dems hoped.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Well, I suppose he's right, actually. The memos ARE an unbelievably big story.

 

Just not in the way the Dems hoped.

 

CNN: denial is 6th story listed.

 

MSNBC: denial is 7th story listed.

 

CBS: the story is 7th listed.

 

Fox News: the story is 4th listed.

 

HUGE I TELL YOU.

 

 

HUGE!

[Guest MikeSC]

LOLOLLOL KERRYS GOING DOWN BECUZ OF THIS!@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Anyone seen this terribly legit SCANDAL!~ getting top billing on any news station? All I've seen is a catergorical denial from Lockhardt and very few people blowing this out of proportion like Teke and his tin foil hat.

 

CBS's producer called Lockhardt for a comment. Hot damn! AN INTERN SCANDAL THREATENS TO RAVAGE THE KERRY CAMPAIGN!

OK, Tyler, go ahead and explain why Lockhart would call Burkett at the request of CBS, as Lockhart has openly admitted.

 

Feel free. And, hell, while you're at it, name another instance of a presidential campaign contacting somebody at the request of a network covering them.

 

While you're at it, explain how Burkett and Barnes are "unimpeachable sources" for anything.

 

BTW, want to know WHY CBS did anything for Burkett? Because Barnes refused to go on-air if he was the only person making allegations against Bush.

 

It isn't a little odd that "Texas Vets for Truth", who are so tied into the Kerry/Edwards camp that it makes moveon.org look like distant, distant relations was created THE DAY THE STORY HIT (9/8/04)? On 9/9/04, The DNC joins the fight with "Fortunate Son", which includes info from the memos mentioned the night before.

 

It's common for a major campaign official (Lockhart) to meet with the source of forged memos (Burkett) --- and whose "corroborating" source is the vice-chair of the campaign (Barnes) at the request of a network peddling a story based on the forged memos (CBS). Even more odd because "Fortunate Son" ads include stuff FROM the forged memos, right, even though the DNC knew "nothing" about the story in advance? I mean, yeah, they often make major political ads in the span of a few hours and have it in numerous markets in just a few hours after the story broke. Happens all of the time.

 

True, I can't name a SINGLE time it has, but still...

 

Just a coincidence, right?

What the fuck, seriously. This story (and your pathetic reactions to it) reeks of Drudge.

It's only the media trying to throw the election. No big deal there.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

CAN YOU PROVE THAT HITLER WASN'T USING THE HIS TOXINS TO DELOUSE THE PRISONERS' SHIRTS? I DIDN'T THINK SO! WHAT ABOUT WHETHER THE THIRD PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON? THERE ISN'T A VIDEO YOU KNOW. I BET THE US GOVERNMENT IS SEALING THE VIDEO BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DID IT. THERE'S NO VIDEO THAT PROVES IT BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH AND BOMBED THE PENTAGON SO WE'D HAVE AN EXCUSE TO GO IN AND ATTACK IRAQ, WHICH WAS OUR GOAL BEHIND THE WHOLE THING. HOW COULD THE US ACTUALLY GO IN AND FIRST, SMEAR HITLER FOR HIS BENEVOLENT ACTS, AND THEN ATTACK THEIR OWN PENTAGON IN HOPE THAT WE'D CAUSE PEOPLE TO BECOME HEROES AND STUFF? THE US NEEDS TO STOP ATTACKING THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE TO EXPLAIN IT OTHERWISE.

[Justice 0]

CAN YOU PROVE THAT HITLER WASN'T USING THE HIS TOXINS TO DELOUSE THE PRISONERS' SHIRTS? I DIDN'T THINK SO! WHAT ABOUT WHETHER THE THIRD PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON? THERE ISN'T A VIDEO YOU KNOW. I BET THE US GOVERNMENT IS SEALING THE VIDEO BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DID IT. THERE'S NO VIDEO THAT PROVES IT BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH AND BOMBED THE PENTAGON SO WE'D HAVE AN EXCUSE TO GO IN AND ATTACK IRAQ, WHICH WAS OUR GOAL BEHIND THE WHOLE THING. HOW COULD THE US ACTUALLY GO IN AND FIRST, SMEAR HITLER FOR HIS BENEVOLENT ACTS, AND THEN ATTACK THEIR OWN PENTAGON IN HOPE THAT WE'D CAUSE PEOPLE TO BECOME HEROES AND STUFF? THE US NEEDS TO STOP ATTACKING THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE TO EXPLAIN IT OTHERWISE.

Stop it.

 

Can anyone find the hidden joke in this post?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Hahaha, I found it.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

didn't Burkett lack these documents 6 months ago?

 

Of course, we know the answer is that the CYA red herring was made by his Microsoft Word. Since he never thought of doing that before.

 

It's remotely possible that he got the memos from somebody else too. But, i'm sure the response to an idea is "He's lying! He made them all! Burn the heretic!"

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They don't have to prove that they should be in charge.

While your point is valid, your words are not. The only people they don't have to "prove" to are the people who thought they had an excellent, flawless four years.

 

He opposed weapons systems DURING the Cold War, too. He supported a nuclear freeze during the Cold War.

 

Well, there's some who would agree with that, and some who wouldn't. I wouldn't say it's end-all evidence that Kerry would weaken the military. You, yourself, just said that Senators sometimes vote for things they don't approve of when you talked about Byrd's pork.

 

Go ahead and try and prove it.

 

If you cannot, then you're simply talking out of your ass.

 

Okay, fine, I can't. Better? But just as I can't prove he did any better in the private meetings, you can't prove he did as worse.

 

What Cheney said is NO different than the Democratic mantra for the last few months.

Unless you can point out where he said that Bush has left us more likely to get another attack, in which case I'll withdraw this.

Bush's policies made us less safe. You cannot possibly be so blinded as to attempt to parse the statement.

 

Alright, they're both scum. That's acceptable.

 

Your basing your assumptions on nothing more than your assumptions. You have zero evidence or proof of anything.

 

When the Republicans in the Senate agree on something, it's basically a done issue. That was why Kerry voted no, because it woudln't have mattered either way because the spend-now pay-later plan had so much support from the so-called conservatives.

 

No POSSIBILITY of co-ordination here. No sir.

 

Happens ALL of the time.

 

Not exactly no possibility of co-ordination, but I don't think the Democrats knew the documents were fake. They probably found out that the documents had been passed to CBS and jumped on the story to be timely about it and it blew up in their face.

 

The issue of the documents is mostly over and we're back onto moving on to real issues. The only people who won't get over the documents is Terry McAuliffe and friends who need to shut their mouth and realize that every day they spend rambling about how the real question is about somebody's Vietnam service that they're hurting their own campaign, and the Republican FreeRepublic conspiracy crew who won't stop until they can piece together some kind of a fantasy that makes this look like Watergate.

 

CBS has proven itself to be what the left loves to pretend FNC is.

 

It's not just pretend, but there's no doubt about it that CBS looks like f'n maroons here. I didn't want to watch 60 Minutes on Sunday night at ALL or for the future, but the other choices were college sports and "Titanic."

 

Well, I suppose he's right, actually. The memos ARE an unbelievably big story.

 

Just not in the way the Dems hoped.

 

I think it's pretty much over here because there's nothing left to see. There is no massive underground conspiracy, and even if there was, the American public is, to be frank, too stupid to pay attention to it. Any news that can't be delivered in soundbytes of 5 words or less are largely ignored as too complicated by the average voter.