NationStates Jolt Archive

CBS is now saying that it was "misled" on the Bush guard memos.

So lets see....we have a producer working on this story for 5 years and this was her last chance to "get" those darn Bush's.

My question is simple. Why? Why would anyone work on a story for 5 years if it was not personal? CBS has taken a SEVERE credibility hit and Dan Rather is in the center of it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6052080/

Dont forget, while they are saying that they were misled in this story, they are also still asserting that even though the documents were (might have been) forged, the accusations within them are still accurate.

Dont forget, while they are saying that they were misled in this story, they are also still asserting that even though the documents were (might have been) forged, the accusations within them are still accurate.

Yeah...that makes a lot of sense doesn't it? The whole thing was a boondoggle from the start and should cost Dan Rather his job.

So CBS takes a "SEVERE credibility hit", but when the Bush administration was "misled" by intelligence, it's ok? I believe Bush himself said that he was misled by bad intelligence or something along those lines.

Fat, CBS has been working on a story for FIVE years... FIVE, and it was ONE person who was working on it. The CIA had many more people working on the situation, the CIA was also having issues with a 'lack of intellegence'. There were clear indications before the CBS special was released that pointed twoards the evidence being a phony, experts going on the record to say that the document was forged, retired officers from the military saying that they had no recollection of this incident, even the fact that the man who supposedly carried out this document had sworn under oath that he gave 'no special favors to any of the Bush family'.

On the other hand, even the Clinton administration beleived that there were WMDs in Iraq, many CIA experts agreed that there were WMDs in Iraq, the Senate, presented with the exact same evidence that the President had been given (this is including John Kerry) all voted for the Iraq war.

See the difference?

EDIT: Oh and I almost forgot, the Colonel's (who supposedly had the documents in his 'personel file') widdow says that the Colonel never kept a 'personel file'.

So CBS takes a "SEVERE credibility hit", but when the Bush administration was "misled" by intelligence, it's ok? I believe Bush himself said that he was misled by bad intelligence or something along those lines.

Yes indeed....Bush was given intel from the CIA, UK, France, Russia and Germany. He acted on what he was given. He acted in good faith and can be forgiven that as anyone would. Dan Rather has a history of animosity with the Bush's and it is becoming clearer that these documents were an attempt to sway public opinion. THAT is what makes this different. If you cannot see it for what it is, then you either have blinders on or are drinking more of that Kool-Aid they are passing around.

Fat, CBS has been working on a story for FIVE years... FIVE, and it was ONE person who was working on it. The CIA had many more people working on the situation, the CIA was also having issues with a 'lack of intellegence'. There were clear indications before the CBS special was released that pointed twoards the evidence being a phony, experts going on the record to say that the document was forged, retired officers from the military saying that they had no recollection of this incident, even the fact that the man who supposedly carried out this document had sworn under oath that he gave 'no special favors to any of the Bush family'.

On the other hand, even the Clinton administration beleived that there were WMDs in Iraq, many CIA experts agreed that there were WMDs in Iraq, the Senate, presented with the exact same evidence that the President had been given (this is including John Kerry) all voted for the Iraq war.

See the difference?

EDIT: Oh and I almost forgot, the Colonel's (who supposedly had the documents in his 'personel file') widdow says that the Colonel never kept a 'personel file'.


So this one person, working on a story for 5 years, can be held accountable for all CBS? I'm not saying either way if the documents are real, forged, whatever. What I am saying is that in both cases, people were misled. Maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally. I have no problem with either group being misled, because that kind of thing happens. There are some people that would do it on purpose, there are some people who let things slip through or misintrepret information. It happens! But I just don't see why CBS should suddenly be much less creditable for doing something similar (not identical) to what happened to the Bush administration.

Yes indeed....Bush was given intel from the CIA, UK, France, Russia and Germany. He acted on what he was given. He acted in good faith and can be forgiven that as anyone would. Dan Rather has a history of animosity with the Bush's and it is becoming clearer that these documents were an attempt to sway public opinion. THAT is what makes this different. If you cannot see it for what it is, then you either have blinders on or are drinking more of that Kool-Aid they are passing around.

Of course Bush acted on what he was given, I'm not faulting him for that. I don't know much about Dan Rather, so I can't say one way or the other if he really does have a history of animosity with Bush. Both acted based on information they were given (unless Dan Rather actually spent the 5 years working on this report), but one suddenly loses creditablity and the other's in the right?

I'm not attacking anyone or anything, but to me this seems like a contradiction. I'm just trying to sort things out.

Of course Bush acted on what he was given, I'm not faulting him for that. I don't know much about Dan Rather, so I can't say one way or the other if he really does have a history of animosity with Bush. Both acted based on information they were given (unless Dan Rather actually spent the 5 years working on this report), but one suddenly loses creditablity and the other's in the right?

I'm not attacking anyone or anything, but to me this seems like a contradiction. I'm just trying to sort things out.

One is a politician doing what he thinks is right.

One is a news organization that is supposed to report the facts and be objective and impartial.

So which one has a credibility problem over this?

Of course Bush acted on what he was given, I'm not faulting him for that. I don't know much about Dan Rather, so I can't say one way or the other if he really does have a history of animosity with Bush. Both acted based on information they were given (unless Dan Rather actually spent the 5 years working on this report), but one suddenly loses creditablity and the other's in the right?

I'm not attacking anyone or anything, but to me this seems like a contradiction. I'm just trying to sort things out.

But prior to going on air, Rather's own staff told him that there was something not quite kosher with the documents. They had experts say that they were unconvinced that the documents were real. Rather went with the story anyway.

Now this from CBS....

The network said that while it was "deliberately misled," it was wrong to go on the air with a story that it could not substantiate.

"Based on what we know now, CBS News can't prove the documents are authentic," CBS President Andrew Heyward said in a statement. "We shouldn't have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6055248/?8

Want to bet they don't have as much of a liberal bias as they did before?

CBS is now saying that it was "misled" on the Bush guard memos.

So lets see....we have a producer working on this story for 5 years and this was her last chance to "get" those darn Bush's.

My question is simple. Why? Why would anyone work on a story for 5 years if it was not personal? CBS has taken a SEVERE credibility hit and Dan Rather is in the center of it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6052080/

It does seem kind of silly to me. And CBS just looks AWFUL.

And it also makes some Kerry supporters (not ALL, I do understand) look ridiculous. I mean, I do not want a Kerry victory, but I would understand more if it were won on grounds of actual ISSUES--NOT on grounds of slanderous statements. What is it that people like Burkette (sp?) are afraid of, that they feel a need to pull a hoax like this?

"Courage" indeed Dan.


More like "What's the frequency Kenneth?"

It does seem kind of silly to me. And CBS just looks AWFUL.

And it also makes some Kerry supporters (not ALL, I do understand) look ridiculous. I mean, I do not want a Kerry victory, but I would understand more if it were won on grounds of actual ISSUES--NOT on grounds of slanderous statements. What is it that people like Burkette (sp?) are afraid of, that they feel a need to pull a hoax like this?
It's a matter of wanting to win "at all costs". And it isnt only the left who have people like this.

"Courage" indeed Dan.


More like "What's the frequency Kenneth?"

That was the FUNNIEST news story I ever saw....Dan Rather being beaten by two men, one who doesn't know what the frequency is. :D

It's a matter of wanting to win "at all costs". And it isnt only the left who have people like this.

Thats all too true unfortunately.....that mentality is not good.

So CBS finally admitted they were wrong.

Their credibility has risen slightly in my eyes. They had the courage to admit that they shouldn't have ran the story.

Keep it up CBS, and I may take back my CBS is a Liberal Station line yet :D

What TOOK so long for the internal investigation, though? That defensive posture they've had for all this time has not looked too good for them. I mean, if they were really interested in their credibility, shouldn't they have jumped on it right away? If they had been falsely accused, don't you think they would've wanted to get the proof out as fast as possible? Or even in this "duping" scenario, like we're looking at right now, you'd think that the quickest way to salvage credibility would be to investigate immediately as soon as the first serious allegations came up. Maybe CBS wanted to believe the story was true or something. But that does not make it true.

Well what do you expect from Dan Rather?

Rather (http://www.fact-index.com/d/da/dan_rather.html#1968%20Democratic%20convention)

So, the fact that the information that "misled" Bush was from a 10-year old Graduate Thesis paper, which itself was based on information from before the Gulf War, matters less than "Rather's own staff told him that there was something not quite kosher with the documents?"

How's that again?

One other person, working for five years, produces something that he knows is bullshit, and there are calls for Rather to resign because it would take co-ordinated incompetence to ignore it. Rove & Cheney have recorded statements of building the case for war against Iraq since 1997, so that's two small organizations working for at least five years, and they produced what they knew was bullshit. There were calls for Bush to resign, because it took thoroughly co-ordinated incompetence for that to be ignored. Fair's fair.

But... fair-minded people acknowledge that last time, there were no sane, intelligent people calling for him to resign. Now there's a weaker case, and it'd be legitimately funny to have a toungue-in-cheek joke call out just to make them look like assholes. How a sane, intelligent person can be serious now is almost beyond me.

But it's an election year, so a fair witness who really does not care either way can flip a coin to either use facts to eviscerate either side's arguements, or sit back and laugh. I'd add excessive cites if I didn't have a paper for Social Engineering due tuesday night, but I can dig them up after that if asked.



Oh, and from Moe's[ link, W Ketchup calls itself: an apolitical ketchup that reflects an America we can all agree on.
Think about that for a second. It's also three times as expensive as Heinz. Does this seem to anybody else like they hate republicans and are trying to make money off of their stupidity?

Meh, who cares about Rather? I'm just glad I don't have to listen to "you're living in a fantasy world because you don't believe the documents are genuine" anymore.

While I believe this gave CBS a bloody nose and they will most certainly be looked at more closely in the future, I have to at least give them credit for coming clean. More then I've ever seen Fox News do ;)

While I believe this gave CBS a bloody nose and they will most certainly be looked at more closely in the future, I have to at least give them credit for coming clean. More then I've ever seen Fox News do ;)
Ok, I'll bite that one Steph... when was the last time you saw Fox News do a story with documents they suspected were false, but went ahead with them anyway?

While I believe this gave CBS a bloody nose and they will most certainly be looked at more closely in the future, I have to at least give them credit for coming clean. More then I've ever seen Fox News do ;)

Has FOX ever done anything like this before? Not to my knowledge.

Ok, I'll bite that one Steph... when was the last time you saw Fox News do a story with documents they suspected were false, but went ahead with them anyway?

Fox News doesn't actually use fake documents, what they do is in some ways even more dangerous, they spread misinformation.. or do you think it's a fluke that 40% (use to be higher) of Americans still believe Iraq had some sort of connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Poll the people who believe that... Fox News watchers. I've never talked with a person who believed that who didn't watch Fox News.

Fox News doesn't actually use fake documents, what they do is in some ways even more dangerous, they spread misinformation.. or do you think it's a fluke that 40% (use to be higher) of Americans still believe Iraq had some sort of connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Poll the people who believe that... Fox News watchers. I've never talked with a person who believed that who didn't watch Fox News.
Rather disengenous there... is it Fox News that is "spreading" that misinformation around. I don't know, because I've never seen it on Fox News that there was connection Hussein vis-a-vis 9/11.

If in fact they have spread that around, then provide the link, and I will "write the editer" so to speak.

Or, are you using the logic that:
Most people who watch Fox believes Saddam/911 link ergo....
Fox news is responsible for that misinformation.

Fox News doesn't actually use fake documents, what they do is in some ways even more dangerous, they spread misinformation.. or do you think it's a fluke that 40% (use to be higher) of Americans still believe Iraq had some sort of connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Poll the people who believe that... Fox News watchers. I've never talked with a person who believed that who didn't watch Fox News.

I have seen on FOX news many times where they refute that notion. Maybe more people should watch FOX news. Then again, you are Canadian and a die-hard liberal so you can't help it. ;)

Fox News doesn't actually use fake documents, what they do is in some ways even more dangerous, they spread misinformation.. or do you think it's a fluke that 40% (use to be higher) of Americans still believe Iraq had some sort of connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Poll the people who believe that... Fox News watchers. I've never talked with a person who believed that who didn't watch Fox News.

Not a Fox News watcher myself -- I prefer to get my slanted news from CNN -- but it seems to me just as likely that people who already believe in an Iraq-9/11 connection watch Fox because it appeals to their conservative worldviews.

Rather disengenous there... is it Fox News that is "spreading" that misinformation around. I don't know, because I've never seen it on Fox News that there was connection Hussein vis-a-vis 9/11.

If in fact they have spread that around, then provide the link, and I will "write the editer" so to speak.

Or, are you using the logic that:
Most people who watch Fox believes Saddam/911 link ergo....
Fox news is responsible for that misinformation.

Ok, you make a good point, perhaps it's more that the Bush administration speard the misinformation, heck Cheney is still trying to do it even after Powell has said it's not true. Yet, the other news outlets seem to have picked up on there was no connection and Fox seems to just leave it unsaid or highlight what Cheney says, despite us all knowing (who want to know) the truth that it wasn't true. I suppose one could argue that if you tell a lie and I know it's a lie and say nothing and allow people to believe your lie, I'm as guilty as you of that lie. At least that is what I believe. To each their own.

I fully admit my bias against neo-conservative idealogs. ;)
I have heard the term neo-conservative now hundreds of times. Used as an insult, and used as a point to an argument, as you did here.
While I concider myself a conservative, I have been called neo-con a few times on these boards.
What is the real meaning of that phrase?

I have seen on FOX news many times where they refute that notion. Maybe more people should watch FOX news. Then again, you are Canadian and a die-hard liberal so you can't help it. ;)

I fully admit my bias against neo-conservative idealogs. ;)

I fully admit my bias against neo-conservative idealogs. ;)

As oppsed to liberal idealogs? They are so similar it is not even funny. Yet it is always the "liberals" who do the labelling. Why is that? As a Libertarian I have some real problems with both sides, but those darn liberal activists sure do get rabid at times over the most mundane things.

I have heard the term neo-conservative now hundreds of times. Used as an insult, and used as a point to an argument, as you did here.
While I concider myself a conservative, I have been called neo-con a few times on these boards.
What is the real meaning of that phrase?

I mean no insult. A neo-con is not the same as a traditional conservative. Heck I personally am a fiscal conservative (Zep & I make good money) I'm only a social liberal. A neo-con believes more in Pax Americana ideas, they don't share the idea of small government , yet still expect tax cuts. They believe in not so much imperialism, but close. They believe that America as the last super power should assert their views on the entire world and if that means using force, then so be it. They believe in this silly notion that they can by using force and political pressure that they can transform the world into one big democracy, as we see Bush trying to do now. Although GW wasn't actually a neo-con when he took office, he by influence of well known neo-cons (mostly outlined in PNAC) who now control the most powerful positions in the Bush administration are in fact neo-cons. Powell is not, Bush wasn't until after 9/11. After 9/11 is when the neo-cons approached him with the PNAC doctrine which in turn he turned into the Bush doctrine shortly there after in the first state of the union address after 9/11.

Trust me, big difference between traditional conservatives and neo-cons. You won't see it before the election, but many conservatives have said there will be a civil war of sorts in the Republican party after the election. At the moment the neo-cons have hijacked the republican party. A pretty good link to read is here (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html) . Also just look up "The Project for a New American Century" aka "PNAC" and you'll see what their goals and aims are. It isn't pretty. They used 9/11 to bring PNAC ideas into substantive policy. It's quite mad to be honest and many (including traditional conservatives) think so.

While I believe this gave CBS a bloody nose and they will most certainly be looked at more closely in the future, I have to at least give them credit for coming clean. More then I've ever seen Fox News do ;)

I think Fox was among the first to expose this nationally. And it was sneered at by people here just for that fact. But what's CBS admitting to now? That Fox was right.

I think this is a good reason why we have media from both ideological sides--to act as checks and balances on each other.

I think Fox was among the first to expose this nationally. And it was sneered at by people here just for that fact. But what's CBS admitting to now? That Fox was right.

I think this is a good reason why we have media from both ideological sides--to act as checks and balances on each other.

Actually ironically enough, it wasn't Fox that exposed it, it was Bloggers. Bloggers have become a fast and powerful part of the media now.

I in no way defend what CBS did. Although I don't believe they are the only ones out there who have done stuff like this. I also truly do believe they were duped.

If we break it down, what is more dangerous, CBS using bogus documents about a 30+ year ago event in Bush's life? Or the government misleading the public into believing things that are clearly not true? If the Bush administration can say we were duped by Ahmed Chalabi, why is it so hard to believe CBS was duped as well?

THE LYNCHING OF DAN RATHER
On British TV, Dan feared the price of "asking questions"
By Greg Palast

September 21, 2004 00:29

"It's that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the
tough questions," the aging American journalist told the British
television audience.

In June 2002, Dan Rather looked old, defeated, making a confession he
dare not speak on American TV about the deadly censorship -- and
self-censorship -- which had seized US newsrooms. After September 11, news on
the US tube was bound and gagged. Any reporter who stepped out of
line, he said, would be professionally lynched as un-American.

"It's an obscene comparison," he said, "but there was a time in South
Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they
dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here.
You will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your
neck." No US reporter who values his neck or career will "bore in on the
tough questions."

Dan said all these things to a British audience. However, back in the
USA, he smothered his conscience and told his TV audience: "George Bush
is the President. He makes the decisions. He wants me to line up, just
tell me where."

During the war in Vietnam, Dan's predecessor at CBS, Walter Cronkite,
asked some pretty hard questions about Nixon's handling of the war in
Vietnam. Today, our sons and daughters are dying in Bush wars. But,
unlike Cronkite, Dan could not, would not, question George Bush, Top Gun
Fighter Pilot, Our Maximum Beloved Leader in the war on terror.

On the British broadcast, without his network minders snooping, you
could see Dan seething and deeply unhappy with himself for playing the
game.

"What is going on," he said, "I'm sorry to say, is a belief that the
public doesn't need to know -- limiting access, limiting information to
cover the backsides of those who are in charge of the war. It's
extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted, and I'm sorry to say
that up to and including this moment of this interview, that
overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current
Administration revels in that, they relish and take refuge in that."

Dan's words had a poignant personal ring for me. He was speaking on
Newsnight, BBC's nightly current affairs program, which broadcasts my own
reports. I do not report for BBC, despite its stature, by choice. The
truth is, if I want to put a hard, investigative report about the USA
on the nightly news, I have to broadcast it in exile, from London. For
Americans my broadcasts are stopped at an electronic Berlin wall.

Indeed, Dan is in hot water for a report my own investigative team put
in Britain's Guardian papers and on BBC TV years ago. Way back in
1999, I wrote that former Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes had put in the fix
for little George Bush to get out of 'Nam and into the Air Guard.

What is hot news this month in the USA is a five-year-old story to the
rest of the world. And you still wouldn't see it in the USA except
that Dan Rather, with a 60 Minutes producer, finally got fed up and ready
to step out of line. And, as Dan predicted, he stuck out his neck and
got it chopped off.

Is Rather's report accurate? Is George W. Bush a war hero or a
privileged little Shirker-in-Chief? Today I saw a goofy two page spread in the
Washington Post about a typewriter used to write a memo with no
significance to the draft-dodge story. What I haven't read about in my own
country's media is about two crucial documents supporting the BBC/CBS
story. The first is Barnes' signed and sworn affidavit to a Texas Court,
from 1999, in which he testifies to the Air Guard fix -- which Texas
Governor George W. Bush, given the opportunity, declined to challenge.

And there is a second document, from the files of US Justice
Department, again confirming the story of the fix to keep George's white bottom
out of Vietnam. That document, shown last year in the BBC television
documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," correctly identifies Barnes as the
bag man even before his 1999 confession.

At BBC, we also obtained a statement from the man who made the call to
the Air Guard general on behalf of Bush at Barnes' request. Want to
see the document? I've posted it at:
http://www.gregpalast.com/ulf/documents/draftdodgeblanked.jpg

This is not a story about Dan Rather. The white millionaire celebrity
can defend himself without my help. This is really a story about fear,
the fear that stops other reporters in the US from following the
evidence about this Administration to where it leads. American news guys and
news gals, practicing their smiles, adjusting their hairspray levels,
bleaching their teeth and performing all the other activities that are
at the heart of US TV journalism, will look to the treatment of Dan
Rather and say, "Not me, babe." No questions will be asked, as Dan
predicted, lest they risk necklacing and their careers as news actors burnt to
death.

Actually ironically enough, it wasn't Fox that exposed it, it was Bloggers. Bloggers have become a fast and powerful part of the media now.

I in no way defend what CBS did. Although I don't believe they are the only ones out there who have done stuff like this. I also truly do believe they were duped.

If we break it down, what is more dangerous, CBS using bogus documents about a 30+ year ago event in Bush's life? Or the government misleading the public into believing things that are clearly not true? If the Bush administration can say we were duped by Ahmed Chalabi, why is it so hard to believe CBS was duped as well?

1. Great, CBS is not dishonest, just incompetent and unable to verify something they broadcast to the entire nation. Good call.

2. Unrelated. CBS TOLD Rather they were dubious documents. He aired them anyway. He should be fired, if he doesn't have the decency to quit.

THE LYNCHING OF DAN RATHER
On British TV, Dan feared the price of "asking questions"
By Greg Palast


Poor, poor Dan the Martyr. He really, really would ask the tough questions like the unbiased, brave and courageous journalist that he is...but we won't let him. Awww....

Poor, poor Dan the Martyr. He really, really would ask the tough questions like the unbiased, brave and courageous journalist that he is...but we won't let him. Awww....

Like the leading questions he asked Clinton....;)

Bush was TOLD that Ahmed Chalabi was not credible by the CIA, he used his info at the UN and to invade Iraq any way. If Bush will quit, then I'm all for Rather having to quit.

Told after the fact.....Iraq needed to be invaded....in 1979 along with Iran.

2. Unrelated. CBS TOLD Rather they were dubious documents. He aired them anyway. He should be fired, if he doesn't have the decency to quit.

Bush was TOLD that Ahmed Chalabi was not credible by the CIA, he used his info at the UN and to invade Iraq any way. If Bush will quit, then I'm all for Rather having to quit.

Bush was TOLD that Ahmed Chalabi was not credible by the CIA, he used his info at the UN and to invade Iraq any way. If Bush will quit, then I'm all for Rather having to quit.

Yep. We went to war based SOLELY on information by Ahmed Chalabi.

It's too bad we didn't have intel from France, Germany, Russia, the CIA, and other nations all attesting to the same thing...and then to have Congress agree to and fund the war. That would have been so much worse...

[/COLOR]

1. Great, CBS is not dishonest, just incompetent and unable to verify something they broadcast to the entire nation. Good call.

2. Unrelated. CBS TOLD Rather they were dubious documents. He aired them anyway. He should be fired, if he doesn't have the decency to quit.

So, Bush was told his intelligence on Iraq, specifically anything coming from Mr Chalabi, was dubious. The U.S. made it's case to the UN, and the UN didn't buy it. The Bush administration was told beforehand that the Niger claims were likely forgeries, but they still told the American people about them. Critics castigated the UN for dragging it's heels, but the views of the UN turned out to be right.

And STILL Bush supporters think CBS is horrible for running a story found to have holes in it, and yet still support a President who started a whole WAR on justifications that were weak.

How can you logically condemn all of CBS but fail to condemn the Bush administration? It makes no sense whatsoever.

No, before the fact actually.

Did you hear what you just said? "Iraq needed to be invaded" .. man :headbang:

Iraq needed to be invaded....in 1979 along with Iran was the quote Steph! Quote all of it and Biff is actually right in that regard. We should have.

Told after the fact.....Iraq needed to be invaded....in 1979 along with Iran.

No, before the fact actually.

Did you hear what you just said? "Iraq needed to be invaded" .. man :headbang:

Yep. We went to war based SOLELY on information by Ahmed Chalabi.

It's too bad we didn't have intel from France, Germany, Russia, the CIA, and other nations all attesting to the same thing...and then to have Congress agree to and fund the war. That would have been so much worse...


Hmmmm, France, Germany and Russia had much of the same intel that we did, and STILL thought a war in Iraq was unfounded...and now they've turned out to be right. I'm tired of the Bush administration making America look bad.

Bush was TOLD that Ahmed Chalabi was not credible by the CIA, he used his info at the UN and to invade Iraq any way. If Bush will quit, then I'm all for Rather having to quit.

You mean we went to war only because of Ahmed Chalabi?

Chalabi and Rather are totally different situations. Chalabi was a small piece of the Iraq pie. There was also "credible" intel from France, Germany, Russia, other nations, the U.S. Congress approved the information (Kerry, included), and approved the war.

As for Rather, it's simple. There is one allegation. One source. Your staff tells you the source may be unreliable. You decide to push anyway because you so desperately want it to air. You were wrong. You should quit because you have lost ALL journalistic integrity and perspective.

Yep. We went to war based SOLELY on information by Ahmed Chalabi...

Most of the Intel that was used was indeed provided almost solely on information provided by Ahmed Chalabi and exile's he produced and his Iraqi National Congress, yes! We know this now.. where have you been hiding?

No, before the fact actually.

Did you hear what you just said? "Iraq needed to be invaded" .. man :headbang:

Iraq AND Iran needed a good ass whooping in 1979. You know how monkeys are, they need a little reinforcement every now and then. ;)

Iraq needed to be invaded....in 1979 along with Iran was the quote Steph! Quote all of it and Biff is actually right in that regard. We should have.

Haha, only problem with that was you were allies with Iraq all the while arming them both. So perhaps all three countries have nothing to be proud of, who's going to invade the USA for all this? That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer.

So perhaps all three countries have nothing to be proud of, who's going to invade the USA for all this? That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer.

Canada? I heard they had 18 tanks up there just ready to storm across the border and teach us a good lesson. ;)

Haha, only problem with that was you were allies with Iraq all the while arming them both. So perhaps all three countries have nothing to be proud of, who's going to invade the USA for all this? That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer.

Actually we really weren't allies with Iraq or Iran! Not in the legal sense of the word at any rate.

Yes during the Iran-Iraq war we backed Iraq but that doesn't mean we were allies with them. We just considered him the Lesser of the two evils and we did not want Ayatolla Komenie to take over Iraq and institute their reign over the Persian Gulf.

As for invading us, the people will fight off the invasion.

Most of the Intel that was used was indeed provided almost solely on information provided by Ahmed Chalabi and exile's he produced and his Iraqi National Congress, yes! We know this now.. where have you been hiding?

Steph - I work in international arms control. I haven't been hiding anywhere. Chalabi was a source. All the entities I listed researched that information. It was independently verified by the nations I listed, the CIA, and Congress.

Bush did not simply "choose to not believe the CIA and launch war with Iraq". It's far more complicated than that. Trust me.

Joke as you will, Canada doesn't have the blood on it's hands that you do. I can be proud of my country. We've never pulled bullshit like this. Americans can't say the same thing. Any way, don't want to turn this into an American bashing thread. But you do know what I mean.

"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died and gave that right to me. And I gladly stand up, Next to you and defend her still today, and there ain't no doubt I love this land! God Bless the USA!"

I'm proud of my country too Stephistan. I'm proud to be an American, and I would gladly die to protect her.

Joke as you will, Canada doesn't have the blood on it's hands that you do. I can be proud of my country. We've never pulled bullshit like this. Americans can't say the same thing. Any way, don't want to turn this into an American bashing thread. But you do know what I mean.

Every country has blood on it's hands. I am sure there are a number of "native" Canadians who might agree with me. Everyone always seems to forget that there were Indian tribes in Canada too. Conveniently it is always the US that is held up as the great killer of the native population. But, as you say I know what you mean.

Canada? I heard they had 18 tanks up there just ready to storm across the border and teach us a good lesson. ;)

Joke as you will, Canada doesn't have the blood on it's hands that you do. I can be proud of my country. We've never pulled bullshit like this. Americans can't say the same thing. Any way, don't want to turn this into an American bashing thread. But you do know what I mean.

Joke as you will, Canada doesn't have the blood on it's hands that you do. I can be proud of my country. We've never pulled bullshit like this. Americans can't say the same thing. Any way, don't want to turn this into an American bashing thread. But you do know what I mean.

Inactivity / neutrality can be just as bloody as overzealousness.

We do too much. You do nothing. We're both wrong.

Every country has blood on it's hands. I am sure there are a number of "native" Canadians who might agree with me. Everyone always seems to forget that there were Indian tribes in Canada too. Conveniently it is always the US that is held up as the great killer of the native population. But, as you say I know what you mean.

Well if you'd like to go back to the beginning of time, sure, I suppose we all do. Some of us learn, some of us don't and are still doing it to this day. I wasn't thinking about two or three hundred years ago, I was sort of thinking in my own life time. But I can't argue that a very long time ago we stole our land the same way you did yours, just not quite as brutally.

Well if you'd like to go back to the beginning of time, sure, I suppose we all do. Some of us learn, some of us don't and are still doing it to this day. I wasn't thinking about two or three hundred years ago, I was sort of thinking in my own life time. But I can't argue that a very long time ago we stole our land the same way you did yours, just not quite as brutally.
We have reservations for our remaining populations. Canada doesn't, since Native Americans were nearly completely wiped out.

Inactivity / neutrality can be just as bloody as overzealousness.

We do too much. You do nothing. We're both wrong.

Oh, Canada has done lots, but not out of self interest. Look up our history some time.

Sorry to the person who posted this thread. I have taken it horribly off topic. I now return you to the topic. CBS!

Sorry to the person who posted this thread. I have taken it horribly off topic. I now return you to the topic. CBS!

Very well. Here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

That Rather took documents and publicly aired them when he knew....KNEW...that they were dubious at best, absolute forgeries at worst, shows an appalling lack of journalistic integrity and perspective. When your personal views and ethics leads your journalistic perspective that far askew, it's time to go.

I do not know enough about the SUBSTANCE of the claims. The substance is not the issue. Even if what was in the documents were true, if he knowingly published false documents, possibly due to his political stance, then he is no longer a journalist, but a political tool. You can't regain credibility being caught in such an obvious political move as that.

I do not state this as a Bush proponent, or a fan. As I said, I do not speak to the validity of the substance of the documents. Just the validity of the documents themselves, on their own merit.

Rather was not duped. He was caught.

Damn, throwing this off topic again, but I couldn't leave this unanswered.. No we actually want to give a lot of their land back to them. They don't pay taxes and are treated much better in Canada then the USA, we still have a ways to go, but at least we are working on it. We believe that Native Americans have a right to self government and self determination, we are not a melting pot.

Try reading instead of assuming. (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/index_e.html)

Wow, thats just great. Is Canada going to give them their own country as well? Then when the Chinese population demands the same thing will you give them their own little country. Then if the Arabs jump in do they get their own country? Then when Quebec decides they have had enough do they get independence too? Thats a very slippery slope isn't it?

We have reservations for our remaining populations. Canada doesn't, since Native Americans were nearly completely wiped out.

Damn, throwing this off topic again, but I couldn't leave this unanswered.. No we actually want to give a lot of their land back to them. They don't pay taxes and are treated much better in Canada then the USA, we still have a ways to go, but at least we are working on it. We believe that Native Americans have a right to self government and self determination, we are not a melting pot.

Try reading instead of assuming. (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/index_e.html)

Actually ironically enough, it wasn't Fox that exposed it, it was Bloggers. Bloggers have become a fast and powerful part of the media now.


You're definitely correct, that the Bloggers picked it up first, but Fox was the first major news outlet (non-Internet) to run with it.

Damn, throwing this off topic again, but I couldn't leave this unanswered.. No we actually want to give a lot of their land back to them. They don't pay taxes and are treated much better in Canada then the USA, we still have a ways to go, but at least we are working on it. We believe that Native Americans have a right to self government and self determination, we are not a melting pot.

Try reading instead of assuming. (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/index_e.html)

Right back at ya, Steph... ;)

Just to balance the issue... (http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html)

Even if what was in the documents were true, if he knowingly published false documents, possibly due to his political stance, then he is no longer a journalist, but a political tool.

Dan Rather has been a "tool" for a LONG time.

As oppsed to liberal idealogs? They are so similar it is not even funny. Yet it is always the "liberals" who do the labelling. Why is that? As a Libertarian I have some real problems with both sides, but those darn liberal activists sure do get rabid at times over the most mundane things.

Wow, did you seriously type that? That's balls, man. I'm stunned....

Wow, thats just great. Is Canada going to give them their own country as well? Then when the Chinese population demands the same thing will you give them their own little country. Then if the Arabs jump in do they get their own country? Then when Quebec decides they have had enough do they get independence too? Thats a very slippery slope isn't it?

No, because we stole this land from Native Americans. None of these other groups you mention can make that claim.

Right back at ya, Steph... ;)

Just to balance the issue... (http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html)

Oh it wasn't me that said the USA does nothing. It was Arammanar who tried to imply that Canadian Native Americans had no rights or land in Canada and went as far as to try and imply we had wiped them out. ;)

[QUOTE=They don't pay taxes and are treated much better in Canada then the USA, we still have a ways to go, but at least we are working on it[/QUOTE]

Sorry, Steph. I should've been clearer as to my intent. I was addressing this quote of yours. Not Arammanar's

I think Fox was among the first to expose this nationally. And it was sneered at by people here just for that fact. But what's CBS admitting to now? That Fox was right.And who first broke the Jennifer Flowers story? The National Enquirer. Yes, it turned out to be true, but does that make them responsible news organization? Of course not. Ditto for the False News Network. There's a folksy idiom for this situation: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".

I think this is a good reason why we have media from both ideological sides--to act as checks and balances on each other.I'm with you on that. The problem is, right wing fantasy not withstanding, that there is no leftist media. The spectrum of visible opinion goes from the mushy middle to the extreme right wing, with the mushy middle being accused of being leftist (as if that's a bad thing).

The incontrovertible fact of the matter is that big media is big business. The media consists of enormous corporations that make their money entirely by selling advertising time & space to other enormous corporations. Thus there is a built-in pro corporate bias and hence the media is either libertarian on conservative in outlook. Liberals support the environment, labor unions and Affirmative Action whereas corporations are hostile to these things. This explains why coverage on these issues has a rightist slant. The media may occasionally allow coverage that is liberal (or libertarian) on social issues such as gay rights or abortion, but it is consistently fiscally conservative.

And who first broke the Jennifer Flowers story? The National Enquirer. Yes, it turned out to be true, but does that make them responsible news organization? Of course not. Ditto for the False News Network. There's a folksy idiom for this situation: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".

I'm with you on that. The problem is, right wing fantasy not withstanding, that there is no leftist media. The spectrum of visible opinion goes from the mushy middle to the extreme right wing, with the mushy middle being accused of being leftist (as if that's a bad thing).

The incontrovertible fact of the matter is that big media is big business. The media consists of enormous corporations that make their money entirely by selling advertising time & space to other enormous corporations. Thus there is a built-in pro corporate bias and hence the media is either libertarian on conservative in outlook. Liberals support the environment, labor unions and Affirmative Action whereas corporations are hostile to these things. This explains why coverage on these issues has a rightist slant. The media may occasionally allow coverage that is liberal (or libertarian) on social issues such as gay rights or abortion, but it is consistently fiscally conservative.
:rolleyes:
There is a liberal bias in news organizations. The current case being discussed is but one example.
You are saying that corperations are, by default, hostile to environment, labor unions, affirmative action. They aren't. They place their bottom line before those concerns, but to think that they actively fight to destroy the environment, fight to disrupt and break up labor unions, and fight to oppose affirmative action is simply anti-corperation rhetoric.

:rolleyes:
There is a liberal bias in news organizations. The current case being discussed is but one example.
You are saying that corperations are, by default, hostile to environment, labor unions, affirmative action. They aren't. They place their bottom line before those concerns, but to think that they actively fight to destroy the environment, fight to disrupt and break up labor unions, and fight to oppose affirmative action is simply anti-corperation rhetoric.If protecting their bottom line means slandering enviromentalists and down-playing enviromental disasters, then they will do - and they do it habitually. Even NPR and PBS do this because they are so dependent on underwriting from Exxon, Dupont et alia.

If protecting their bottom line means slandering enviromentalists and downplaying enviromental disasters, then they will do - and they do it habitually. Even NPR and PBS do this because they are so dependent on underwriting from Exxon, Dupont et alia.
Fine, you say NPR and PBS habitually slandering environmentalists, and downplaying environmental disasters (a far cry to being hostile to the environment/labor unions and affirmative action).
Please provide one link attesting to that?
One link attesting that any of the major news organizations do that?
Something that can be examined and discussed, rather than only your position and what you think might be happening.

Fine, you say NPR and PBS habitually slandering environmentalists, and downplaying environmental disasters (a far cry to being hostile to the environment/labor unions and affirmative action). Please provide one link attesting to that? One link attesting that any of the major news organizations do that? Something that can be examined and discussed, rather than only your position and what you think might be happening.So glad you asked. You want one link? I've got several. Go to www.fair.org and type in what ever topic or news organization you like. They have been monitoring the corporate bias in the media since the Eighties. Here are but a few memorable samples: some fairly new, some very old. This has been going on for quite some time. Most are short enough for sound-byte short attention spans.

Exploding ABC's Unabomber Hoax
http://www.fair.org/extra/9606/unabomb.html

Toxic Times
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/nyt-environment-experts.html

Holes in Ozone Coverage
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/ozone.html

Peter Jennings Cries Wolf
http://www.fair.org/activism/jennings-wolf.html

Prattle in Seattle:
WTO coverage misrepresented issues, protests
http://www.fair.org/extra/0001/wto-prattle.html

And it is not just the environment that the corporate media spins, they do in fact distort coverage of labor and Affirmative Action. The Seattle article has already shown the medias anti-labor bias, but here are some more articles:

White Man's Burden:
How the Press Frames Affirmative Action
http://www.fair.org/extra/9509/aa.html

Media Preferences: The Myth of Popular Opposition
in the Affirmative Action Debate
http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/media-preferences.html

The Right Has a Dream: Martin Luther King
as an Opponent of Affirmative Action
http://www.fair.org/extra/9505/king-affirmative-action.html

No Place for Labor on PBS
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/labor-pbs.html

Sweatshops Are the Workers' Friend, And Labor Activists
Their Enemy - According to The New York Times
http://www.fair.org/extra/9611/sweatshops.html

So glad you asked. You want one link? I've got several. Go to www.fair.org and type in what ever topic or news organization you like. They have been monitoring the corporate bias in the media since the Eighties. Here are but a few memorable samples: some fairly new, some very old. This has been going on for quite some time. Most are short enough for sound-byte short attention spans.

Ok, I get your point... since political leanings are relative.... and www.fair.org makes npr look like a Rush ditto head then of course every other media source is right wing :rolleyes:

Following from www.mediaresearch.org
Dan’s Distorted Poll Reporting: “The President calls the tax cut necessary. Democrats call it a campaign for the wealthy. So far, it’s a problematic sell for the President. In a CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight, less than half the respondents thought the Bush tax cut would actually help the economy.”
— May 13, 2003 CBS Evening News. Rather failed to report that the poll he cited showed twice as many said tax cuts would help the economy (41 percent) than said new tax cuts would hurt (19 percent).

Dan Rather on Honesty “I think the fact that someone has told a lie, even a big lie or maybe several big lies over a lifetime, does not mean that they’re an inherently dishonest person....I believe in redemption and that Bill Clinton – is he an honest person? I think he is an honest person. Did he lie? Yes, he lied, and on those occasions he was dishonest.”
— Appearing on the Feb. 7, 2002 Imus in the Morning radio show defending his comment from May 15, 2001 on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor that Clinton was “an honest man” and that “you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.”

We all see where 527's have gotten to us: “On Capitol Hill, it took seven years, but the shame of Enron finally got Congress to pass a campaign finance reform bill today. The legislation bans soft money, the unregulated special interest donations to national political parties. But it doubles the allowable hard money with donations to individual candidates now to be capped at $2,000.”
— CBS Evening News, March 20, 2002.

» Don't Be Conned by Moderate Speakers. On Sunday's Nightly News, Tom Brokaw warned viewers not to believe that Republicans were sensible centrists just because moderates like John McCain were on the stage: "Streetwise New Yorkers may call that the political equivalent of a popular con game in this tough town — three-card monte. But then," he rued, "that's a game in which the dealer almost always wins."

» Republicans Against Women. Tuesday afternoon on his MSNBC show, Brokaw in New York, Brokaw told Maine's moderate Senator Susan Collins that she had no place at the GOP convention: "You have no place in this convention. The platform does not seem to speak to a lot of women in this country. It's anti-abortion, it does not expand stem cell research. On other social issues in which women have some interest, for example, gay unions, [it] is formally opposed to that."

» Disdaining Wild-Eyed Zell. Wednesday night, Time's Joe Klein trashed Democrat Zell Miller: "I don't think I've seen anything as angry or as ugly as Miller's speech," he groused on CNN. The next morning, ABC's George Stephanopoulos seconded Klein's disdain: "Zell Miller was on a tirade. I mean, he was red-faced," the former Clinton aide complained.

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham: “The work of the evening, obviously, is to connect George W. Bush to the great war leaders of the modern era. You’re going to hear about Churchill projecting power against public opinion....”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “But Iraq was a popular cause when he first started it. It wasn’t like Churchill speaking against the Nazis.”
Meacham: “That’s not the way the Republican Party sees it. They think that all of us and the New York Times are against them.”
Matthews: “Well, they’re right about the New York Times and they may be right about all of us.”
– Exchange shortly after 8:30pm EDT during MSNBC’s live convention coverage, August 30.

“Democrats might now question their strategy of having been polite to the President at their convention, for Republicans showed no such reluctance last night. The keynote speaker, Democratic Senator Zell Miller....Miller all but questioned Kerry’s patriotism, citing Kerry votes against weapons systems....The Vice President, in his acceptance speech, was milder by comparison, but just by comparison....The Vice President and Senator Miller pounded and pounded and pounded. It may have been very effective politics; it was not subtle.”
– ABC’s Charles Gibson on Good Morning America September 2, recounting the speeches from the night before.

» Touting Kerry's Defenders, Hiding His Critics. When CBS got word that the Sunday, August 22 Chicago Tribune would publish a story by one of its editors, former swift boat commander William Rood, defending John Kerry's account of how he won the Silver Star, the network raced to report it. "Breaking the silence," anchor Sharyl Attkisson trumpeted on the August 21 CBS Evening News, "A swift boat commander who fought with John Kerry speaks out for the first time." CBS found it a story worth repeating — three days later, CBS's Harry Smith confronted John O'Neill with Rood's account, portraying it as evidence that he and other Kerry critics were wrong.

But CBS News paid no attention six days later when a retired admiral, William Schachte, challenged a crucial element of Kerry's record, his first Purple Heart. Schachte said he was on the same boat when Kerry suffered a minor wound, which Schachte said resulted from Kerry's own grenade going off, not enemy fire. The Chicago Sun-Times broke the story on Friday, August 27, and NBC followed up with its own interview with Schachte that night, but CBS remained silent all weekend.

Clearly the Republicans planted fake evidence to get the news story to run, then discredit the evidence, and with it, the network. A bit like what the UN is rumoured to have done with the WMD evidence, in order to discredit the US as part of its long-standing committment to evil and the establishment of a New World Order. @.@

(Warning: this post may contain traces of sarcasm)

While I believe this gave CBS a bloody nose and they will most certainly be looked at more closely in the future, I have to at least give them credit for coming clean. More then I've ever seen Fox News do ;)
"A bloody nose"???

More than anything Dan Rather and C-BS's rear-end has been spanked like a 3-year old kid caught stealing at a Wal-Mart in Alabama. (to steal a style from Dan Rather.)

As oppsed to liberal idealogs? They are so similar it is not even funny. Yet it is always the "liberals" who do the labelling. Why is that? Um, you're on crack, right? Did liberals invent the term "feminazi"? Liberals are so slow to take up mudslinging that they regularly get called weenies. Then when they finally return fire the right cries foul. For how many years had Rush Limbaugh spouted venom before Al Franken finally wrote Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations? Weenies or attack dogs? You can't have it both ways. The sad fact of the matter is the right consists of vicious crybabies: they can dish it out but they can't take it.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17667

As a Libertarian I have some real problems with both sides, but those darn liberal activists sure do get rabid at times over the most mundane things.Like lying about WMDs?

Yeah...that makes a lot of sense doesn't it? The whole thing was a boondoggle from the start and should cost Dan Rather his job.


He's going to retire before long, anyway, so I'm sure he doesn't care that he and CBS made asses of themselves. :gundge:

What TOOK so long for the internal investigation, though? That defensive posture they've had for all this time has not looked too good for them. I mean, if they were really interested in their credibility, shouldn't they have jumped on it right away? If they had been falsely accused, don't you think they would've wanted to get the proof out as fast as possible? Or even in this "duping" scenario, like we're looking at right now, you'd think that the quickest way to salvage credibility would be to investigate immediately as soon as the first serious allegations came up. Maybe CBS wanted to believe the story was true or something. But that does not make it true.

Considering they were getting pretty strong hints from their experts prior to even running this, you'd think they would have investigated first, instead of risking their credibility. Now it just looks like they got caught in the act.

Like lying about WMDs?

May I please see some evidence that Bush lied about WMDs?

As I understand it, there were five intelligence reports from multiple intelligence agencies indicating that something was going on, there was a recent report that Saddam did intend to manufacture deadly gas after the UN sanctions were over, there is irrefutable evidence that Iraq was cooperating with an African nation to obtain uranium, and the nations of the UN who did not support the war were either nations who profited from Hussein's regime or third world despots. But if you perhaps know of a memo that goes:

"Dear Rummy,
Akbar gave me the wrong change from my slurpee, AGAIN. Bomb the sand monkeys, plz. Imma go take a nap with Barney.

Sinceritively,
G-Dub"

I would be very much interested in hearing about it.

Fox News doesn't actually use fake documents, what they do is in some ways even more dangerous, they spread misinformation.. or do you think it's a fluke that 40% (use to be higher) of Americans still believe Iraq had some sort of connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Poll the people who believe that... Fox News watchers. I've never talked with a person who believed that who didn't watch Fox News.

Then 40% of people haven't been listening to Bush, who never stated a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or Iraq and 9/11. Fox has had people on who said this, even recently, but its inaccurate. The 9/11 commission report is very clear that no connection existed, as well. :rolleyes: It amazes me that people keep saying this.

Ok, I get your point... since political leanings are relative.... and www.fair.org makes npr look like a Rush ditto head then of course every other media source is right wing :rolleyes:

Following from www.mediaresearch.org ...And Media Research makes every other media source look like The Daily Worker or Pravda. But it is not just a question of relativity. As I said before elsewhere, the media is really libertarian. Sex sells, so they get accused of being "liberal" by Jerry Falwell, but their fiscal conservatism is undeniable. Even you admit that they put their bottom line first; you just seem to be in denial about it affecting their coverage. But boy does it ever. If you want to play dueling quotes, take a gander at John Stossel's spin on global warming:

Stossel's discussion of global warming was highly selective in the information it presented. Instead of reporting the increasingly strong scientific consensus on global warming, Stossel chose to highlight the views of so-called "skeptics," giving center stage to three dissenters from among the 2,000 scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which recently released a report stating that global temperatures are rising almost twice as fast as previously thought.

To back up the skeptics' claims, Stossel presents some deceptive evidence: "You may have heard that 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of 'devastating consequences.' But I bet you hadn't heard that 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's 'no convincing evidence' that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate."

The implication is that 10 times as many scientists question global warming. What Stossel doesn't note is that while the first petition was circulated by a group well-respected in the scientific community, the second petition has been famously discredited.

The first, smaller petition came from the Union of Concerned Scientists and its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners. The latter petition was a project of the George C. Marshall Institute, whose chair, Frederick Seitz, is also affiliated with the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group calling itself the "voice for business in the global warming debate"), in conjunction with the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, a lesser-known group whose leader, wrote columnist Molly Ivins, is a biochemist who "specializes in home schooling and building nuclear shelters" (Los Angeles Times, 8/17/98).

Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science. In fact, OISM's screening process was so lax that for a time the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html

Of course, even the Pentagon has issued a report warning of the cataclysmic consequences of global warming. But I suppose they are also part of the "liberal media", along with Fortune Magazine ...

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/3532

there is irrefutable evidence that Iraq was cooperating with an African nation to obtain uraniumGet your news from Fox? Your "irrefutable evidence" was, in fact, a pathetic forgery and the Bush folks were told as much.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071003C.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121503E.shtml

Like Dan Rather, Cheney and friends should have listened. Unlike with Dan Rather, the forgeries were also false.

But while Knox greatly undermines the documentation of the CBS reporting, it is important for critics to recognize that she corroborates the substance of that reporting. "The information in them is correct," she told the New York Times (9/15/04). "It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together." That "someone," a report in Newsweek (9/30/04) suggested, may have been Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard lieutenant colonel who has charged that Bush's Guard records were culled in 1997 to eliminate "anything there that will embarrass the [then] governor" (Dallas Morning News, 2/11/04).

http://www.fair.org/activism/cbs-memos-knox.html