NationStates Jolt Archive

Dan Rather, admitted Democrat, has once again shown that his objectivity is a joke. He has stated time and again that the documents that he used to "break" the story on Bush's ANG service were verified by "experts."

Now it seems that the "expert" that CBS used to verify the documents says he only examined the signature and not the actual document.

Maybe it is time for Dan to retire.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5993683/

blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah

blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah

Yes, much like Dan Rather, you make the same point of his "breaking" news.

blah blah blah, blah, blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah BLAH

that what i imagine you are posting

blah blah blah, blah, blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah BLAH

that what i imagine you are posting

Still losing debates I see. One day you will grow up.

Many times I have seen in this forum a challenge by lefties to give an example of a liberal bias in the media. Accompanying those challenges was usually a comment along the lines of: "You can't give an example, because it doesn't happen."

Well, all you libbies, mark this one on your calendar. CBS News making FALSE, SLANDEROUS accusations using FORGED DOCUMENTS as their source.

'Nuff said.

Many times I have seen in this forum a challenge by lefties to give an example of a liberal bias in the media. Accompanying those challenges was usually a comment along the lines of: "You can't give an example, because it doesn't happen."

Well, all you libbies, mark this one on your calendar. CBS News making FALSE, SLANDEROUS accusations using FORGED DOCUMENTS as their source.

'Nuff said.

CBS has been to the left for quite awhile. Long gone are the days when we did not know anything about the newscasters. When Rather came out and admitted that he was a Democrat and supported the party line his credibility took a huge hit. Now this and he is all but finished as a newsman. CBS should dump him pronto.

"Welcome to the CBS Evening DNC Advertisement...I'm Dan Rather"

It's not uncommon for the media to make mistakes, it happens all the time. Every where all around North America every day news papers and media outlets make retractions. I believe as long as CBS comes forward and admits it didn't do all the fact checking it should have on the documents they will be fine as will Dan Rather. He's been around for a long time, although he is getting old and perhaps he should retire. I have serious doubts now personally that these documents are real. However here is what we do know for fact.

1) Bush never showed up for his physical and thus was grounded.

2) Bush never served in Alabama, some one would have come forward by now given there is a $10,000 reward for any one who can prove they served with Bush there. No one credible has come forward.

3) We know he was given special treatment and strings were pulled to get him in the ANG

4) We know he did join the ANG to avoid going to Vietnam.

Who cares what the documents say.. the truth is enough one would think.

Besides, who cares about what Kerry or Bush did 30+ years ago. There is more then enough to sink Bush on his record of the past 4 years. Now if Kerry would just run an effective campaign (which he is not doing) Bush would be to the curb. This may not happen and if it doesn't it will be no one's fault but Kerry's, he has more then enough to work with against Bush, why he hasn't been using Bush's own record for the last 4 years against him is quite beyond me. Hopefully he can turn this baby around in the next 5 weeks. I hope he pulls it off at the debates. If he doesn't.. I'm afraid to say, Bush will win.

It's not uncommon for the media to make mistakes, it happens all the time. Every where all around North America every day news papers and media outlets make retractions. I believe as long as CBS comes forward and admits it didn't do all the fact checking it should have on the documents they will be fine as will Dan Rather. He's been around for a long time, although he is getting old and perhaps he should retire. I have serious doubts now personally that these documents are real. However here is what we do know for fact.

1) Bush never showed up for his physical and thus was grounded.

2) Bush never served in Alabama, some one would have come forward by now given there is a $10,000 reward for any one who can prove they served with Bush there. No one credible has come forward.

3) We know he was given special treatment and strings were pulled to get him in the ANG

4) We know he did join the ANG to avoid going to Vietnam.

Who cares what the documents say.. the truth is enough one would think.

Besides, who cares about what Kerry or Bush did 30+ years ago. There is more then enough to sink Bush on his record of the past 4 years. Now if Kerry would just run an effective campaign (which he is not doing) Bush would be to the curb. This may not happen and if it doesn't it will be no one's fault but Kerry's, he has more then enough to work with against Bush, why he hasn't been using Bush's own record for the last 4 years against him is quite beyond me. Hopefully he can turn this baby around in the next 5 weeks. I hope he pulls it off at the debates. If he doesn't.. I'm afraid to say, Bush will win.

Well...here is the difference. CBS and Dan Rather keep insisting the documents are real even though their own expert has said he cannot verify that. Dan Rather is an admitted Democrat and was so against Bush I that he got into a shouting match with him on the news in 1992 before the election then.

Yes, people do make mistakes...but this was deliberate and the ONLY people still saying that the documents are real is CBS.

Of course it does get peoples minds off of Kerry and his Vietnam service. Now, IF it comes out that the Kerry campaign supplied these documents or George Soros maybe...Kerry would be finished.

Well...here is the difference. CBS and Dan Rather keep insisting the documents are real even though their own expert has said he cannot verify that. Dan Rather is an admitted Democrat and was so against Bush I that he got into a shouting match with him on the news in 1992 before the election then.

Yes, people do make mistakes...but this was deliberate and the ONLY people still saying that the documents are real is CBS.

Of course it does get peoples minds off of Kerry and his Vietnam service. Now, IF it comes out that the Kerry campaign supplied these documents or George Soros maybe...Kerry would be finished.

I think it's quite a leap to believe that CBS the oldest network in the USA would knowingly break the law. They may of however been duped and at the moment are probably waiting for lawyers to do what lawyers do in these situations. CBS may come out yet. To believe that CBS broke the law to smear Bush is quite an unlikely leap. I also don't believe Kerry is directly involved. That would be stupid. You may not like Kerry, but he hasn't got where he is by breaking the law and being stupid.

Also as to bias, people can not be accused of being bias when they admit their political slant. It's when they claim to be objective and they are not, that is when they can be accused of media biased. For example, James Carville clearly states he is a liberal on crossfire, so of course he is not expected to be "objective" same as Sean Hannity clearly admits he is a conservative and is for the right, thus when he says what he says, you are suppose to know what he is saying is slanted to conservatives in the same way you know James Carville is a liberal. When you can critique the media for bias is when they claim to be objective and they're not, like Bill O'Reilly for example. He claims he's completely objective, which of course we all know is not the case. So, to me as long a the person is honest about it to the public, there is nothing wrong with having that political slant. Journalism ethics would also agree with this opinion.

Now as to get people's mind off of Kerry's Vietnam record.. that's just more garbage. The debate and discussion should be about the last 4 years and the next 4 years. Every thing else is just a distraction to what is truly important to Americans and counter-productive for each and every American. Although I'm sure Bush must be loving not having to discuss the utter mess he's made of things for the last 4 years, which is what this election should be about. So it is highly doubtful that Kerry would have had any thing to do with these documents, the only person trying to change the subject from what is truly important in this election would be Bush, he's the only one who has motive to.

I think it's quite a leap to believe that CBS the oldest network in the USA would knowingly break the law. They may of however been duped and at the moment are probably waiting for lawyers to do what lawyers do in these situations. CBS may come out yet. To believe that CBS broke the law to smear Bush is quite an unlikely leap. I also don't believe Kerry is directly involved. That would be stupid. You may not like Kerry, but he hasn't got where he is by breaking the law and being stupid.

I don't think Kerry is involved directly either, but it very well could be someone on his staff or even a "volunteer" for his campaign. Such things have happened before and will again I am sure.

Also as to bias, people can not be accused of being bias when they admit their political slant. It's when they claim to be objective and they are not, that is when they can be accused of media biased. For example, James Carville clearly states he is a liberal on crossfire, so of course he is not expected to be "objective" same as Sean Hannity clearly admits he is a conservative and is for the right, thus when he says what he says, you are suppose to know what he is saying is slanted to conservatives in the same way you know James Carville is a liberal. When you can critique the media for bias is when they claim to be objective and they're not, like Bill O'Reilly for example. He claims he's completely objective, which of course we all know is not the case. So, to me as long a the person is honest about it to the public, there is nothing wrong with having that political slant. Journalism ethics would also agree with this opinion.

Yes, but Carville and Hannity are on shows that are SUPPOSED to highlight their bias. Dan Rather, being a newsman should be above such things. The moment he admitted to being a staunch Democrat, his objectivity went out the wndow. Every story he did after that was tempered with the knowledge that everyone knew where he stood and anything he said pro Democrat had to be taken with a grain of salt.

Now as to get people's mind off of Kerry's Vietnam record.. that's just more garbage. The debate and discussion should be about the last 4 years and the next 4 years. Every thing else is just a distraction to what is truly important to Americans and counter-productive for each and every American. Although I'm sure Bush must be loving not having to discuss the utter mess he's made of things for the last 4 years, which is what this election should be about. So it is highly doubtful that Kerry would have had any thing to do with these documents, the only person trying to change the subject from what is truly important in this election would be Bush, he's the only one who has motive to.

Indeed....the future is what this election is about, thats why Kerry has befuddled so many people. He "reported for duty" alright, but then what?

Heh, on a lighter note. I watched Jon Stewart last night and he said right after the the Democratic convention when Kerry said "reporting for duty" Bush sent him to Iraq..lol I'm sure it loses some of it's humor value in the re-telling and in text.. but it was pretty funny. ;)

Yeah, I love that show. They also ripped on Dan Rather last night....

He "reported for duty" alright, but then what?

Heh, on a lighter note. I watched Jon Stewart last night and he said right after the the Democratic convention when Kerry said "reporting for duty" Bush sent him to Iraq..lol I'm sure it loses some of it's humor value in the re-telling and in text.. but it was pretty funny. ;)

It's not uncommon for the media to make mistakes, it happens all the time. Every where all around North America every day news papers and media outlets make retractions. I believe as long as CBS comes forward and admits it didn't do all the fact checking it should have on the documents they will be fine as will Dan Rather. He's been around for a long time, although he is getting old and perhaps he should retire. I have serious doubts now personally that these documents are real. However here is what we do know for fact.

1) Bush never showed up for his physical and thus was grounded.

2) Bush never served in Alabama, some one would have come forward by now given there is a $10,000 reward for any one who can prove they served with Bush there. No one credible has come forward.

3) We know he was given special treatment and strings were pulled to get him in the ANG

4) We know he did join the ANG to avoid going to Vietnam.

Who cares what the documents say.. the truth is enough one would think.

Besides, who cares about what Kerry or Bush did 30+ years ago. There is more then enough to sink Bush on his record of the past 4 years. Now if Kerry would just run an effective campaign (which he is not doing) Bush would be to the curb. This may not happen and if it doesn't it will be no one's fault but Kerry's, he has more then enough to work with against Bush, why he hasn't been using Bush's own record for the last 4 years against him is quite beyond me. Hopefully he can turn this baby around in the next 5 weeks. I hope he pulls it off at the debates. If he doesn't.. I'm afraid to say, Bush will win.


You have no idea hwat your talking about on virtually every one of your points. Let's set the record straight right now, and you can then retract your errors.

1. CBS is not only refusing to make a retraction of any kind, but they are also virtually admitting the documents are false, and then going so far as to say "So what, based on our opinion they may as well be real". That is FAR from routine practices of the media in general. I hope you would agree, otherwise it is clear the media pulls this daily and routinely around the nation as you put it.

2. Bush was grounded becuase the planes in Alabama were a totally different type of plane than those he was trained and qualified to fly in Texas. There was nothing for him to fly in Alabama so what was the point. He was already going to miss his required monthly flight time, there was no point in being READY to fly due to passing a routine physical. Democrats make this imaginary argument that due to missing this physical, he didn't complete his obligation, that is simply false and a made up set of circumstances.

3. You know strings were pulled huh? Well why is it that one particular Col. has REQUESTED to be interviewd by all of the major networks and shows to verify that G. W. Bush sat IN HIS OFFICE virtually every drill period reading flight manuals and other flight related materials due to the fact he couldn't fly the type of planes they had in Alabama, yet he has been denied any interviews. Does this not alarm anyone? HE even called the White House telling them he could verify Bush was there. Republicans being different animals than liberals told him it was not necessary, that this was typical of the media and it would soon pass. John Kerry would have pulled the guy out of his normal life and asked him to go on a national tour with him, and performed a lip lock at every stop. Pull your head out of the sand, this guy has been on a few interviews now (nothing major), but if you deny he exists and claim nobody has come forward, then your just a propagandest and not at all presenting the facts.

4. You know he was given speacial treatment huh. Would this be the word of the ex-Democratic Governor that is NOW saying he gave special treatment to Bush? The same guy who 4 years ago said it absolutley never happened and he has never done such a thing. The same guy whose daughter now says he called her last month to inform her he was going to do this smear campaign to push a new book he is writting, and that Kerry promised him a position in his new government should he win? The same guy who has on the record been called a liar by his daughter, who says she is ashamed that he is doing this, and that he knows they discussed him making it up for political reasons? That's some great proof there, I wouldn't question this guy at all about his intentions, other than the fact he lied about it during Bush's two other elections, now is 180 degrees from his prior statements. Oh, all this while he even now says nobody in Bush's family ever contacted or presearred him, it was just assumed. Give me a damn break already...The day when Democratic Governors help Republican kids avoid going to war is the day I'll kiss your ass and lick my lips afterwards.

4. You know he joined the ANG to avoid Vietnam huh. And John Kerry didn't join the Navy RESERVES to avoid Vietnam? Let's tell a few facts here that have never been reported, or at best barely reported since this all began.

a. John Kerry joined the Navy Reserves, not the damn Navy. Look at almost every document he has produced and it is signed by reserve officers from reserve units activated, hardly en effort to get to the front lines. This is no different than Bush saying he was in the Air Force as well as the Air National Guard becuase he spent 120 days on active duty for training. Notice how they are treated MUCH differently though?

b. John Kerry served 2 tours in Vietnam, everyone claims. His first TOUR was 5 weeks stations many miles off the coast baby sitting on a frigate, hardly a damn tour in vietnam. He was mainly off the coast of Australia and California for that tour. He was NEVER in country...what a warrior, I sat my ass at home during the last Iraq war, maybe I can claim I served there twice.

c. John Kerry's two tours totalled 5 months of service, less than half of anyone elses one tour. He did everything but shoot himself in the head to avoid vietnam and getting the hell out of there asap. I didn't notice Vietnam having a Navy with anything not made out of wood and rope. What a hero, the way he tells it you would have thought he was a damn Tunnel Rat or something, far from it.

5. This statement pretty much sums up your points and arguments nicely, and I quote. "Who cares what the documents say.. the truth is enough one would think." The point is, we are trying to get to the "TRUTH", but that is awful hard when you and your liberal media pals go into this not caring about any factual evidence and feel it is perfectly justified to ignore, hide, lie, and mislead certain facts to support John Kerry's side of view (nobody can witness Bush was in Alabama), and then you taught fake documents as the lead in for your hit piece on Bush, when caught say, that doesn't really matter, what is important is we know it is correct due to our beliefs and values. "We will just shove our opinion out of the mouth of a guy who has been dead for 20 years, and it is ok, were not biased".

I agree with your last paragraph 100%. We are all sick of this Vietnam crap, and nobody more so than G. W. Bush. But where does Kerry stand on anything? Can you just answer me that. I want a few answers from anyone on this board.

1. What is his stance on Iraq?
2. What is his stance on Terrorism?
3. What is his stance on Abortion?
4. What is his stance on normalising relations with Cuba?

I know that there are no answers to this, as every angle can be quoted from him in the last three months alone. But, without him giving answers to this, he doesn't deserve to be my bag boy, let alone President of the United States. Just being a Democrat is not qualifications for the highest office in the land, I hate to inform you guys.

I can only imagine G. W. Bush showing up in 2000 and accepting the win 60 days before the election and all anyone knows about the guy is that he can pronounce his own name. That is John Kerry at this point, who knows what he thinks on anything he talks about.

Dan Rather, admitted Democrat, has once again shown that his objectivity is a joke. He has stated time and again that the documents that he used to "break" the story on Bush's ANG service were verified by "experts."

Now it seems that the "expert" that CBS used to verify the documents says he only examined the signature and not the actual document.

Maybe it is time for Dan to retire.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5993683/

So which is it? The other day, Republicans were bi*ching because they said the signatures were fake. Today, now you're spinning it around and saying the experts didn't analyze the documents (after the signatures were proven to be accurate).

So...what's gonna be your story tomorrow?

So which is it? The other day, Republicans were bi*ching because they said the signatures were fake. Today, now you're spinning it around and saying the experts didn't analyze the documents (after the signatures were proven to be accurate).

So...what's gonna be your story tomorrow?

It's NOT my story. Read the story for yourself.

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco.

Many times I have seen in this forum a challenge by lefties to give an example of a liberal bias in the media. Accompanying those challenges was usually a comment along the lines of: "You can't give an example, because it doesn't happen."

Well, all you libbies, mark this one on your calendar. CBS News making FALSE, SLANDEROUS accusations using FORGED DOCUMENTS as their source.

'Nuff said.
As per usual, the tag "'nuff said'" leaves not enough said.....maybe thats what the apostrophy is for....

One program on one channel f's up (I'll grant that it is likely, even though the jury is still out, not that evidence matters to anyone, only accusation) -one report on one show on one channel that was jumped all over before noon the next day by every other network does not a case for bias make.

Thats cute though. Putting "'nuff said'" at the end of the argument. Lets us all know you haven't said enough.

I should add that the venom(weak as it is) in this post is not really intended for the guy I quoted so much as it's aimed at people who end thier posts with "'nuff said'" all the damn time. That works for Stan Lee....he writes COMIC BOOKS...he doesn't have to say much. Everytime I see "'nuff said'" here it's the tag to a very incomplete argument.

You have no idea hwat your talking about on virtually every one of your points.

If you say so. I suppose that is your opinion.

1. CBS is not only refusing to make a retraction of any kind, but they are also virtually admitting the documents are false, and then going so far as to say "So what, based on our opinion they may as well be real". That is FAR from routine practices of the media in general. I hope you would agree, otherwise it is clear the media pulls this daily and routinely around the nation as you put it.

If you took the time to check, that's actually not what CBS is saying. I believe Dan Rather said "Until some one proves they are false, I stand by them" While I admit I personally believe they've been faked.

2. Bush was grounded becuase the planes in Alabama were a totally different type of plane than those he was trained and qualified to fly in Texas. There was nothing for him to fly in Alabama so what was the point. He was already going to miss his required monthly flight time, there was no point in being READY to fly due to passing a routine physical. Democrats make this imaginary argument that due to missing this physical, he didn't complete his obligation, that is simply false and a made up set of circumstances.

On that I think you're horribly mistaken. We already know from Bush's own released records he was grounded for not showing up for his physical, there is no dispute over that. Further there is no evidence, none, to say Bush even served in Alabama and if you can come up with some, I hear there is $10,000 dollars in it for you.

3. You know strings were pulled huh?

Again we know that's a given. Bush scored the lowest of the men he was up against yet was moved to the top of the list. Fluke? I think not. It's not rocket science, but believe as you wish.

4. You know he joined the ANG to avoid Vietnam huh. And John Kerry didn't join the Navy RESERVES to avoid Vietnam? Let's tell a few facts here that have never been reported, or at best barely reported since this all began.

Don't know how old you are, but it's common knowledge that if you didn't want to go to Vietnam during that period you tried to get into the ANG, it's not exactly a secret. Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and that is a fact no one will dispute. So, again, way off track here buddy.

b. John Kerry served 2 tours in Vietnam, everyone claims. His first TOUR was 5 weeks stations many miles off the coast baby sitting on a frigate, hardly a damn tour in vietnam. He was mainly off the coast of Australia and California for that tour. He was NEVER in country...what a warrior, I sat my ass at home during the last Iraq war, maybe I can claim I served there twice.

Get informed.

Do The Math (http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service_timeline.html)


I agree with your last paragraph 100%. We are all sick of this Vietnam crap, and nobody more so than G. W. Bush. But where does Kerry stand on anything? Can you just answer me that. I want a few answers from anyone on this board.

1. What is his stance on Iraq?
2. What is his stance on Terrorism?
3. What is his stance on Abortion?
4. What is his stance on normalising relations with Cuba?

I know that there are no answers to this.

Oh I could answer this, but I'll let Kerry do it himself..

Pick An Issue, Any Issue! (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/)

I believe I'm done with you.. ;)

Many times I have seen in this forum a challenge by lefties to give an example of a liberal bias in the media. Accompanying those challenges was usually a comment along the lines of: "You can't give an example, because it doesn't happen."

Well, all you libbies, mark this one on your calendar. CBS News making FALSE, SLANDEROUS accusations using FORGED DOCUMENTS as their source.

'Nuff said.
Yay! I've been looking for a liberal version of FOX. Now I can listen to lies that I like! :D

If you say so. I suppose that is your opinion.



If you took the time to check, that's actually not what CBS is saying. I believe Dan Rather said "Until some one proves they are false, I stand by them" While I admit I personally believe they've been faked.



On that I think you're horribly mistaken. We already know from Bush's own released records he was grounded for not showing up for his physical, there is no dispute over that. Further there is no evidence, none, to say Bush even served in Alabama and if you can come up with some, I hear there is $10,000 dollars in it for you.



Again we know that's a given. Bush scored the lowest of the men he was up against yet was moved to the top of the list. Fluke? I think not. It's not rocket science, but believe as you wish.



Don't know how old you are, but it's common knowledge that if you didn't want to go to Vietnam during that period you tried to get into the ANG, it's not exactly a secret. Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and that is a fact no one will dispute. So, again, way off track here buddy.



Get informed.

Do The Math (http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service_timeline.html)




Oh I could answer this, but I'll let Kerry do it himself..

Pick An Issue, Any Issue! (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/)

I believe I'm done with you.. ;)


1. Ok, so all Dan Rather has to do is deny they are fake until someone else proves them false,w hile denying anyone the ability to look at them? I thought his job was to prove them real or fake before he created a news hour surrounding them. Your logic is at best 2nd or 3rd grade rational. Allah Pundit makes a compelling case that the author of the CBS memo surfs anti Bush websites.Why? Well, the memo includes the wrong acronym 'OETR.'People familiar with military technology suggest that the acronym the author of the memo meant to use was 'OER'--an abbreviation for 'Officer Effectiveness Report.'An anti Bush website (found courtesy of Google) called 'The AWOL Project' lists a bunch of related documents under the title, 'The OETR Scam. To point out the obvious bias, Sally Quinn says it doesn't matter if the documents are forgeries it matters what they say. George Bush needs to come clean. Case Closed!

2. So just becuase you along with the liberal media deny factual evidence, suddenly it vanishes and never existed? So this Col. that claims Bush sat IN HIS OFFICE in Alabama every drill weekend is just full of crap huh? You can drag out forged documents, but a living breathing person who wants to swear under oath is just a puff of smoke? He doesn't want your $10,000, he has already gone on record as saying he just wants to say what he knows and go on with his life. I know you liberals have no concept of what that means, but Republicans do.

3. You entire paragraph discussing Bush's flight school points is not only flawed but an obvious LIE to try and improve your position. When you do something like that it just ruins your credibility with every point your trying to make. I can understand making a mistake, I'm sure I'm not 100% accurate 100% of the time, I don't work for CBS, but to go to the very extreme is just plain wrong, stupid and laughable. He did not score THE LOWEST in his class. He FACTUALLY scored just above the middle, still not great, but reality, there is a difference. What does that have to do with getting into the ANG? Did they only send the top pilots we could produce to the ANG so all the shitty pilots could go and die in Vietnam? Maybe that is why we lost that damn war. Why even bother sending them to pilots school, just ship them all over and get it over with.

4. I know what Kerry posts on his website, but how he posts it is as believable as everything else he discusses. He starts his Vietnam service at the point when he "Decides" to join a swiftboat team. Then he ships off to California and out of that entire year spends 5 weeks way off shore of Vietnam on a frigget, and claims that as a tour of duty. You do the math bonehead, it is not only obvious but retarded. If you want to claim that as a tour for your boy, go right ahead, I'm just saying that it was really 5 weeks in theater miles out at sea and he never touched land during that tour, where am I lying or fabricating any of those statements? Ok, so it was still a tour...I was born in 1968, I'm sure I could come up with some way of concocting that I qualify for a tour as well.

And for you old farts that want to claim victory becuase I'm no baby boomer...I did serve 8 years in the MArine Corps as a Special Operations MAster Instructor (SOTG) 3rd MarDiv. I did fight in two wars Panama and the first Gulf War, and I did get a purple heart in both...of course I didn't get any bronze stars or silver stars as I don't think the Corps gives them out like candy, but that's another story.

Just becuase I served and am a Vet doesn't make me the athority on Kerry or Vietnam, but I would much rather support a vet than tear one down. I wish this guy gave me something to work with early on, but he not only didn't, he kept and keeps shooting himself in the foot. I just want to get away from the creep.

Many times I have seen in this forum a challenge by lefties to give an example of a liberal bias in the media. Accompanying those challenges was usually a comment along the lines of: "You can't give an example, because it doesn't happen."

Well, all you libbies, mark this one on your calendar. CBS News making FALSE, SLANDEROUS accusations using FORGED DOCUMENTS as their source.

'Nuff said.
i know the republicans are all psychic, but im a skeptic, and i KNOW no typography expert has come forward and said to the public at large the document are fake, until that happens and not a moment sooner, stick your opinion in your ear, until then you are a slanderous hypocrite

This point's an old one of mine but it's still not been answered. If the right are really bothered about bias in the media why don't you also attack the almost complete media blackout on Chomsky and Zinn? The real left are far more discriminated against by the corporate media then either faction of the Republicrats are.

This point's an old one of mine but it's still not been answered. If the right are really bothered about bias in the media why don't you also attack the almost complete media blackout on Chomsky and Zinn? The real left are far more discriminated against by the corporate media then either faction of the Republicrats are.

This is not a direct case of bias, but it certainly is odd that Rather, who has publicly stated that he supports the Democrats and has a history of anti-Bush reporting ran with this story.

This point's an old one of mine but it's still not been answered. If the right are really bothered about bias in the media why don't you also attack the almost complete media blackout on Chomsky and Zinn? The real left are far more discriminated against by the corporate media then either faction of the Republicrats are.

I just bought a book by Chomsky - it's sitting right here on my desk, I haven't had a chance to read it yet (too busy with school). The book is "Hegemony or Survival", btw.

Other than that, I know basically nothing about him. I just thought the book looks like it offers an interesting point of view.

This is not a direct case of bias.It was in response to comments like this Many times I have seen in this forum a challenge by lefties to give an example of a liberal bias in the media. Accompanying those challenges was usually a comment along the lines of: "You can't give an example, because it doesn't happen."

and this [quote=perrion]The point is, we are trying to get to the "TRUTH", but that is awful hard when you and your liberal media pals go into this not caring about any factual evidence and feel it is perfectly justified to ignore, hide, lie, and mislead certain facts to support John Kerry's side of view so I think it's reasonable to assume bias is an issue in this debate. (I could also bring up the corporate media machinations to keep Nader out of debates in the last election, with nary a peep from the Republicans. So I think whining about bias stinks of hypocrisy).
but it certainly is odd that Rather, who has publicly stated that he supports the Democrats and has a history of anti-Bush reporting ran with this storyFirstly, I think it would be far worse if Rather was presenting himself as an independent. I'm a firm follower of the Gonzo school of journalism- bias is inevitable. For god's sake be honest about it. I take a different stance on this story then you though. I don't think Rather's political affilations are the reason he ran with this. I think that he thought he'd got a major journalistic scoop so ran with it without proper checking. Occam's Razor.

It was in response to comments like this so I think it's reasonable to assume bias is an issue in this debate. (I could also bring up the corporate media machinations to keep Nader out of debates in the last election, with nary a peep from the Republicans. So I think whining about bias stinks of hypocrisy).
Firstly, I think it would be far worse if Rather was presenting himself as an independent. I'm a firm follower of the Gonzo school of journalism- bias is inevitable. For god's sake be honest about it. I take a different stance on this story then you though. I don't think Rather's political affilations are the reason he ran with this. I think that he thought he'd got a major journalistic scoop so ran with it without proper checking. Occam's Razor.

Dan Rather made a serious mistake when he admitted a few years ago that he fully supported the Democrats. His objectivity as a news man went right out the window.

Now he is actually making campaign ads for Kerry. Is that not a conflict of interest?

Dan Rather made a serious mistake when he admitted a few years ago that he fully supported the Democrats. His objectivity as a news man went right out the window.

Now he is actually making campaign ads for Kerry. Is that not a conflict of interest?

Why yes it can be a conflict of interest Biff! Why aren't the Democrats up in arms over this conflict of interest? If this was a republican doing this, they would be! I'm surprised the Republicans aren't jumping on this conflict of interest.

Why yes it can be a conflict of interest Biff! Why aren't the Democrats up in arms over this conflict of interest? If this was a republican doing this, they would be! I'm surprised the Republicans aren't jumping on this conflict of interest.

Because the Republicans already have their own news station, it's called Fox cable news.

Because the Republicans already have their own news station, it's called Fox cable news.

Good try.....but no.

Because the Republicans already have their own news station, it's called Fox cable news.

Ironically though, I've seen more Vote for Kerry ads on Fox than I have vote for Bush!

Also, I don't see the people at fox doing campaign commercials for Bush either.

Ironically though, I've seen more Vote for Kerry ads on Fox than I have vote for Bush!

Also, I don't see the people at fox doing campaign commercials for Bush either.

If you say so.. :rolleyes:

i know the republicans are all psychic, but im a skeptic, and i KNOW no typography expert has come forward and said to the public at large the document are fake, until that happens and not a moment sooner, stick your opinion in your ear, until then you are a slanderous hypocrite

Joseph Newcomer, an expert in computer-based typesetting, pointed out that several characteristics of the "CYA" memo, in which Killian purportedly wrote that senior officers pressured him to "sugar coat" Bush's record, indicated that it was written long after the early 1970s, and probably even after 1995. Newcomer performed an experiment, typing out the letter in a current version of Microsoft Word, printing it on a transparency and then laying it over the CBS document to note the differences and similarities. He added that the technique does not work with other documents signed by Killian that are known to be legitimate.

From Newcomer's site, which includes his resume if you doubt his expertise:
http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

"I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting. I was doing work with computer typesetting technology in 1972 (it actually started in late 1969), and I personally created one of the earliest typesetting programs for what later became laser printers, but in 1970 when this work was first done, lasers were not part of the electronic printer technology (my way of expressing this is “I was working with laser printers before they had lasers”, which is only a mild stretch of the truth). We published a paper about our work (graphics, printer hardware, printer software, and typesetting) in one of the important professional journals of the time (D.R. Reddy, W. Broadley, L.D. Erman, R. Johnsson, J. Newcomer, G. Robertson, and J. Wright, "XCRIBL: A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation," Information Processing Letters (1972, pp.246-251)). I have been involved in many aspects of computer typography, including computer music typesetting (1987-1990). I have personally created computer fonts, and helped create programs that created computer fonts. At one time in my life, I was a certified Adobe PostScript developer, and could make laser printers practically stand up and tap dance. I have written about Microsoft Windows font technology in a book I co-authored, and taught courses in it. I therefore assert that I am a qualified expert in computer typography.

"The probability that any technology in existence in 1972 would be capable of producing a document that is nearly pixel-compatible with Microsoft’s Times New Roman font and the formatting of Microsoft Word, and that such technology was in casual use at the Texas Air National Guard, is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero."

There, now what do you "know"? Again with the name-calling from you, that's all you "know." You have been proven wrong, by your own criteria. Now you can stick your opinion where the sun don't shine.

As per usual, the tag "'nuff said'" leaves not enough said.....maybe thats what the apostrophy is for....

One program on one channel f's up (I'll grant that it is likely, even though the jury is still out, not that evidence matters to anyone, only accusation) -one report on one show on one channel that was jumped all over before noon the next day by every other network does not a case for bias make.

Thats cute though. Putting "'nuff said'" at the end of the argument. Lets us all know you haven't said enough.

I should add that the venom(weak as it is) in this post is not really intended for the guy I quoted so much as it's aimed at people who end thier posts with "'nuff said'" all the damn time. That works for Stan Lee....he writes COMIC BOOKS...he doesn't have to say much. Everytime I see "'nuff said'" here it's the tag to a very incomplete argument.

I never said it made a case for bias. I was responding to bile-filled demands from libbies to "provide an example." That's what I did.

'Nuff said. :p

Why does Dan Rather keep insisting that the documents are real?

Because he has an absolute hatred of the Bush family. In 1998 he confronted G. H. W. Bush live on TV and engaged in an argument with him and lost. Walter Kronkite said he should have been fired over that incident.

His credibility as a newsman is on the line and he is fighting to keep his job. He is now making campaign ads for kerry. :rolleyes:

He should be fired and replaced.

Why does Dan Rather keep insisting that the documents are real?

Because he has an absolute hatred of the Bush family. In 1998 he confronted G. H. W. Bush live on TV and engaged in an argument with him and lost. Walter Kronkite said he should have been fired over that incident.

His credibility as a newsman is on the line and he is fighting to keep his job. He is now making campaign ads for kerry. :rolleyes:

He should be fired and replaced.

Agreed. It is exactly this gnawing hatred of his that allowed him to be duped in this case. He wanted it to be true so badly that he ran with the story without checking the most basic facts first. And against the advice of his experts who advised him not to run the story.

Agreed. It is exactly this gnawing hatred of his that allowed him to be duped in this case. He wanted it to be true so badly that he ran with the story without checking the most basic facts first. And against the advice of his experts who advised him not to run the story.

I have watched the CBS evening news since the 60's and Rather really needs to go. I thought he was gone when he argued with Bush I and then again when he walked off the set for 7 minutes once in a tiff. He really is an idiot.

I have watched the CBS evening news since the 60's and Rather really needs to go. I thought he was gone when he argued with Bush I and then again when he walked off the set for 7 minutes once in a tiff. He really is an idiot.
Do you own a remote control? Failing that, are you capable of walking over to the set and changing the channel?

Nobody is forcing you to watch CBS anymore than they are forcing me to watch Fox. If you don't like the coverage, change the channel. It's not like you don't have options anymore. Or maybe it's just that you'd rather bitch about it than move on.

Do you own a remote control? Failing that, are you capable of walking over to the set and changing the channel?

Nobody is forcing you to watch CBS anymore than they are forcing me to watch Fox. If you don't like the coverage, change the channel. It's not like you don't have options anymore. Or maybe it's just that you'd rather bitch about it than move on.

I don't have a problem with the coverage. I find CBS to be no better or worse than ABC or NBC. Dan Rather is funnier because you never know what he is going to do next. It was a riot when he stormed off the set for 7 minutes and the argument he got in with G. H. W. Bush was hilarious as well because Rather came off badly on that one.

However.... now that Dan is making campaign ads for the Kerry campaign he has crossed the line and has lost ALL objectivity as an impartial newsman.

Joseph Newcomer, an expert in computer-based typesetting, pointed out that several characteristics of the "CYA" memo, in which Killian purportedly wrote that senior officers pressured him to "sugar coat" Bush's record, indicated that it was written long after the early 1970s, and probably even after 1995. Newcomer performed an experiment, typing out the letter in a current version of Microsoft Word, printing it on a transparency and then laying it over the CBS document to note the differences and similarities. He added that the technique does not work with other documents signed by Killian that are known to be legitimate.

From Newcomer's site, which includes his resume if you doubt his expertise:
http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

"I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting. I was doing work with computer typesetting technology in 1972 (it actually started in late 1969), and I personally created one of the earliest typesetting programs for what later became laser printers, but in 1970 when this work was first done, lasers were not part of the electronic printer technology (my way of expressing this is “I was working with laser printers before they had lasers”, which is only a mild stretch of the truth). We published a paper about our work (graphics, printer hardware, printer software, and typesetting) in one of the important professional journals of the time (D.R. Reddy, W. Broadley, L.D. Erman, R. Johnsson, J. Newcomer, G. Robertson, and J. Wright, "XCRIBL: A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation," Information Processing Letters (1972, pp.246-251)). I have been involved in many aspects of computer typography, including computer music typesetting (1987-1990). I have personally created computer fonts, and helped create programs that created computer fonts. At one time in my life, I was a certified Adobe PostScript developer, and could make laser printers practically stand up and tap dance. I have written about Microsoft Windows font technology in a book I co-authored, and taught courses in it. I therefore assert that I am a qualified expert in computer typography.

"The probability that any technology in existence in 1972 would be capable of producing a document that is nearly pixel-compatible with Microsoft’s Times New Roman font and the formatting of Microsoft Word, and that such technology was in casual use at the Texas Air National Guard, is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero."

There, now what do you "know"? Again with the name-calling from you, that's all you "know." You have been proven wrong, by your own criteria. Now you can stick your opinion where the sun don't shine.
sicne you seem to be missing a NUMBER of reading comprehension skills let me say this AGAIN

until a typography expert comes out on NATIONAL news and anounces to the PUBLIC AT LARGE, not on his own personal site, that the memos are fake, you can take your OPINION and stick it in your ear, when some one does anounce they are fake you can still quite frankly do the same but then you can rant and rave about how right you are, but NOT until then

sicne you seem to be missing a NUMBER of reading comprehension skills let me say this AGAIN

until a typography expert comes out on NATIONAL news and anounces to the PUBLIC AT LARGE, not on his own personal site, that the memos are fake, you can take your OPINION and stick it in your ear, when some one does anounce they are fake you can still quite frankly do the same but then you can rant and rave about how right you are, but NOT until then

Your original post did NOT say "national news", so it seems you are the one with comprehension problems (and memory problems too, it seems). You are attempting to move the goal posts to protect your fragile ego. Even if you had said "national news," you would still be incorrect because Mr. Newcomer was on Fox News last night, and on foxnews.com today, saying the exact same things. Whether you agree with Fox or not, it IS "national news" directed "to the public at large."

And now you say: "[even] when some one does anounce [sic] they are fake you can still quite frankly do the same." You're saying that, even though I am right and have proven you wrong, you will never admit it.

You seriously need to grow up, little boy.

Your original post did NOT say "national news", so it seems you are the one with comprehension problems (and memory problems too, it seems). You are attempting to move the goal posts to protect your fragile ego. Even if you had said "national news," you would still be incorrect because Mr. Newcomer was on Fox News last night, and on foxnews.com today, saying the exact same things. Whether you agree with Fox or not, it IS "national news" directed "to the public at large."

And now you say: "[even] when some one does anounce [sic] they are fake you can still quite frankly do the same." You're saying that, even though I am right and have proven you wrong, you will never admit it.

You seriously need to grow up, little boy.

said to the public at large
that means EVERYBODY, and how do you suppose it be delivered to everybody? THE NEWS, ok thanks bye

do you have a transcript, link it, and if it was a talk show and not a news show im ignoring it, and your lucky i dont ignore it if it was one their "news" programs

their reporting is fine, its when they start intervieiwing people that they go "go go gadget right wing slant!"

that means EVERYBODY, and how do you suppose it be delivered to everybody? THE NEWS, ok thanks bye

do you have a transcript, link it, and if it was a talk show and not a news show im ignoring it, and your lucky i dont ignore it if it was one their "news" programs

their reporting is fine, its when they start intervieiwing people that they go "go go gadget right wing slant!"

Why should I bother linking something you have already stated you will ignore? Can't you find foxnews.com without my help?

Mr. Newcomer's position is also featured on numerous blogs, which reach many people. In fact, his website that I linked to is currently down because his ISP said it was receiving too many hits!

Your mommy is calling you, it's time for your Kool-Aid.

Why should I bother linking something you have already stated you will ignore? Can't you find foxnews.com without my help?

Mr. Newcomer's position is also featured on numerous blogs, which reach many people. In fact, his website that I linked to is currently down because his ISP said it was receiving too many hits!

Your mommy is calling you, it's time for your Kool-Aid.
i dont read blogs, everyone does not read blogs, no one cares

and i said relate the transcript i dont feel like searching around fox news, apparently since you are the avatar of fox news, just link me to the transcript, how hard is that all mgihty avatar?

sicne you seem to be missing a NUMBER of reading comprehension skills let me say this AGAIN

until a typography expert comes out on NATIONAL news and anounces to the PUBLIC AT LARGE, not on his own personal site, that the memos are fake, you can take your OPINION and stick it in your ear, when some one does anounce they are fake you can still quite frankly do the same but then you can rant and rave about how right you are, but NOT until then

All we need, however, is reasonable doubt to throw out this news report. The burden is on CBS to prove the documents are real, and with their experts' analysis and qualifications in question, I'm inclined to believe they've been fabricated. On the other hand, if they are fake, we don't know WHO made. Perhaps solely blaming Rather is slightly unfair. Jumping to conclusions won't get us any closer to the truth.

All we need, however, is reasonable doubt to throw out this news report. The burden is on CBS to prove the documents are real, and with their experts' analysis and qualifications in question, I'm inclined to believe they've been fabricated. On the other hand, if they are fake, we don't know WHO made. Perhaps solely blaming Rather is slightly unfair. Jumping to conclusions won't get us any closer to the truth.
yet it still stands no one has come forth stating they were fake. i havnt seen it on the front page of msn or on abc or nbc or on the front page of the local paper or anywhere else it would be had some one stepped forward and anounced to the nation they are undeniably fake, they cannot be dismissed out of hand or by the opinion of some one predisposed to favor the right

Well, a congressman has called for an investigation. NOW maybe we will learn where these things came from.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6004644/

Well, a congressman has called for an investigation. NOW maybe we will learn where these things came from.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6004644/

I am just stunned that a Republican would call for an investigation. No really.....

As to Rather being finished?

Nahhh if Savage, Rush, Hanity and Coulter can go on; so will he.

What I find intresting is the group in Texas offering $50000 for anybody to prove the Shrubs service record.

Personally, I wish we would get off this crap. It's nothing more then Willie Hortan all over again.

Keep it to current affairs.

Kerry you listening? Even if you have damning evidence that the shrub didn't do his duties(which I belive), you are not going to get any converts.

I am just stunned that a Republican would call for an investigation. No really.....

As to Rather being finished?

Nahhh if Savage, Rush, Hanity and Coulter can go on; so will he.

What I find intresting is the group in Texas offering $50000 for anybody to prove the Shrubs service record.

Personally, I wish we would get off this crap. It's nothing more then Willie Hortan all over again.

Keep it to current affairs.

Kerry you listening? Even if you have damning evidence that the shrub didn't do his duties(which I belive), you are not going to get any converts.

Funny you should mention Willy Horton. Dukakis stated the other day that the Willy Horton mess was true.

I am just stunned that a Republican would call for an investigation. No really.....

As to Rather being finished?

Nahhh if Savage, Rush, Hanity and Coulter can go on; so will he.

What I find intresting is the group in Texas offering $50000 for anybody to prove the Shrubs service record.

Personally, I wish we would get off this crap. It's nothing more then Willie Hortan all over again.

Keep it to current affairs.

Kerry you listening? Even if you have damning evidence that the shrub didn't do his duties(which I belive), you are not going to get any converts.


why would he start listening now? He has had the entire campaign to do so, yet the only way I can figure out what he wants to do is to go to his web site.

I never said it made a case for bias. I was responding to bile-filled demands from libbies to "provide an example." That's what I did.

You never said that it made a case for bias but you were responding to demands to "provide an example" of bias. How does that work? That I aside you were asked to provide an example of deliberate news slanting by CBS as an organisation in the same way as the Fox Memos demonstrate Fox do. What you've done is provide evidence that a single journalist (not a manager) who is open about his Democrat affilations is *Gasp* a Democrat. Not exactly Sherlock Holmes. What you gonna do for an encore? Prove the Pope is biased towards the Catholic Church?

I note that the right are studiously avoiding my point about the blatant censorship of real leftist views by the entire corporate media.

'Nuff said. :p
I agree. The silence speaks volumes.

You never said that it made a case for bias but you were responding to demands to "provide an example" of bias. How does that work? That I aside you were asked to provide an example of deliberate news slanting by CBS as an organisation in the same way as the Fox Memos demonstrate Fox do. What you've done is provide evidence that a single journalist (not a manager) who is open about his Democrat affilations is *Gasp* a Democrat. Not exactly Sherlock Holmes. What you gonna do for an encore? Prove the Pope is biased towards the Catholic Church?

I note that the right are studiously avoiding my point about the blatant censorship of real leftist views by the entire corporate media.

I agree. The silence speaks volumes.

It does not show a level of "corporate" bias at CBS, but it does go a long way to degrade the objectivity of Dan Rathers reporting. From this point on Rather will be seen for what he is and any story he does will be seen as having his personal slant on it. If CBS is smart, they will replace him. Brokaw, Jennings? We have no idea what or who they support. Their objectivity (or the illusion thereof) is intact.

It does not show a level of "corporate" bias at CBS, but it does go a long way to degrade the objectivity of Dan Rathers reporting. From this point on Rather will be seen for what he is and any story he does will be seen as having his personal slant on it. If CBS is smart, they will replace him. Brokaw, Jennings? We have no idea what or who they support. Their objectivity (or the illusion thereof) is intact.
Isn't what it actually does is to back up Hunter S Thomson's view that objectivity in journalism is and always has been a lie? In my ideal news station we'd have Chomsky, Hunter S Thomson (natch), Al Franken and PJ O'Rourke. Then at least we'd be fully aware where they were coming from.

Isn't what it actually does is to back up Hunter S Thomson's view that objectivity in journalism is and always has been a lie? In my ideal news station we'd have Chomsky, Hunter S Thomson (natch), Al Franken and PJ O'Rourke. Then at least we'd be fully aware where they were coming from.

Maybe it is an illusion, but by bursting that bubble, Rather has really opened himself up for ridicule. In a few minutes CBS is going to make an announcement regarding this mess.

I will predict that they will come out and admit that some of the documents are fake....but....they stand by their story. :D

Either way, they have taken it on the chin over this one and hopefully done some damage to the Kerry campaign to boot. ;)