NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a question for Conservatives: Why is Dan Rather more accountable than CBS?

With CBS, they were given forged documents by a National Guardsmen who also lied to them. But CBS's checking of the authenticity and correctness of the documents was poor, so they falsely claimed they were legitimate.

With the U.S. government, Bush had been repeatedly given false information, including forged documents about Niger's uranium. But the government's checking of the authenticity and correctness of the documents was poor, so they falsely claimed they were legitimate.

So...

Why is Rathers accountable, but the President is not? They're both identical situations. Rather (so far as we know) wasn't involved with CBS's fact-checking and Bush (so far as we know) wasn't involved with the FBI's and CIA's intelligence. And you'd think that the FBI and CIA should be held to higher standards than CBS's fact-checking.

So, why is Rathers accountable, but the President is not?

higher up the food chain, everyone believed Saddam had WMD including Saddam so how were we to know even HE was mistaken?

Dan Rather claimed to be a biased new source. It turned out he wasn’t because of his eagerness to put out the story, so he was fired.

The American people had a chance to hold Bush accountable, but they didn’t. He won the election, the popular and electoral.

higher up the food chain, everyone believed Saddam had WMD including Saddam so how were we to know even HE was mistaken?
Everyone at CBS (so far as we know) also believed that their story was true. So, who was Rathers to know HE was mistaken?

Dan Rather claimed to be a biased new source. It turned out he wasn’t because of his eagerness to put out the story, so he was fired.

The American people had a chance to hold Bush accountable, but they didn’t. He won the election, the popular and electoral.
Dan Rathers never claimed to be "biased." He claimed that the documents were incorrect. Even in his interview with Larry King, he made that clear. He said there was never any evidence that CBS had anything to do with the person who forged the documents.

CBS's and Dan Rathers' statements are here:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-20-2004/0002253657&EDATE=

So, no. So far, the two situations are still logically analogous and perfectly comparable.

oops, i meant unbiased, sorry all

As to why they fired him, the execs wanted a scapegoat, plain and simple.

so your conmparing the CBS to neanrly every major government in the UN? Your right lets fire all the heads of state that thought Saddam had WMD :rolleyes: . Especially at least two of them Bush & Blair have been "democratically" re-elected

Dan Rather claimed to be a biased new source. It turned out he wasn’t because of his eagerness to put out the story, so he was fired.
No one is "unbiased." They had documents given to them by a National Guardsman, who also told them they were authentic. Rathers was never part of CBS's fact-checking team, so any claims of bias are irrelevant, as he had no way of knowing that the documents were falsified. Rathers never checks the facts of any story handed to him.

No one is "unbiased." They had documents given to them by a National Guardsman, who also told them they were authentic. Rathers was never part of CBS's fact-checking team, so any claims of bias are irrelevant, as he had no way of knowing that the documents were falsified. Rathers never checks the facts of any story handed to him.

Well thats just niaeve

so your conmparing the CBS to neanrly every major government in the UN? Your right lets fire all the heads of state that thought Saddam had WMD :rolleyes: . Especially at least two of them Bush & Blair have been "democratically" re-elected
No. At CBS, they didn't fire everyone. They fired the figurehead. The man at the top. Dan Rathers.

I say we do the same with both the U.S. and U.K. governments. The President is the "head of state" and the "commander-in-chief." He is the LEADER of all U.S. security and intelligence. George Tenet did not fail. Bush did.

Well thats just niaeve
Either you have MPD, or you're purposely acting stupid just to annoy me. ;)

Either you have MPD, or you're purposely acting stupid just to annoy me. ;)

If you don't make sure info is correct then your gonna end up looking stupid.
And by the way whats MPD for us ignorant British people who will actually check out info and not blindly distribute it?

No. At CBS, they didn't fire everyone. They fired the figurehead. The man at the top. Dan Rathers.

I say we do the same with both the U.S. and U.K. governments. The President is the "head of state" and the "commander-in-chief." He is the LEADER of all U.S. security and intelligence. George Tenet did not fail. Bush did.

and yet you want Bush removed? The man at the top.

oh the irony

If you don't make sure info is correct then your gonna end up looking stupid.
And by the way whats MPD for us ignorant British people who will actually check out info and not blindly distribute it?
Haha. Stop messing with me. And MPD is, "Multiple personality disorder."

Haha. Stop messing with me. And MPD is, "Multiple personality disorder."

So how have I got that?

And whats funny about checking out info? You haven't come up with one reason, your just deflecting the discussion by talking about some condition that I clearly haven't got. You started this conversation now you don't wanna talk about it.
Are you sure YOU don't have MPD?

well?

When people realize that Bush isn't the evil demon they make him out to be, we won't have to deal with such fallacies.

When people realize that Bush isn't the evil demon they make him out to be, we won't have to deal with such fallacies.

I'll admitt I'm far from his biggest fan but ideas like this anoy me

The difference is that Dan Rather's job was to report the news. CBS was already supposed to have ensured the authenticity of the news. He doesn't decide what happens with it -- he just reports it. No newsperson is going to go out of their way to fact check when they already have a team of people whose JOB it is to fact check say "Yeah, it's true."

President Bush's job isn't to report the news. It's to get the information and, instead of telling it to the American people, make a decision on it. So he's got to make triple-quadruple-sure that his facts are dead on.

I'll admitt I'm far from his biggest fan but ideas like this anoy me



When conspiracy theories are daily quoted as fact, you know there's a problem.

and yet you want Bush removed? The man at the top.

oh the irony

How is that ironic?

He was denouncing the removal of the tip of the hierarchy because of the actions of people lower on the structure. Then he reversed his position and called for the removal of a person at the tip of the hierarchy because of the actions of people lower on the structure. That's ironic.

I think you'll actually find that he was decrying the fact that the conservatives treated two different people in similar situations differently. They campaigned for the sacking of one, and then campaigned for the re-election of another.

Both successfully I might add. Say what you like about conservatives, they're damn good at campaigning.

hmmmmm why ask a question with such obvious answers

1) rather is paid to tell the truth always, bush is a politician.

2) rather has a boss, bush IS the boss.

3) rather wasnt fired, just moved to a different job with a lower profie. bush suffers a loss of poltical esteem that hurts all his programs.

4) rather is probably paid the same as when he was newsanchor, maybe he has lost a bit of face in a small error that will wear off over time. bush will forever be in the history books as the man who lied us into the iraq war. no matter what else he does it will be remembered.

think of kennedy and bay of pigs, johnson and the gulf of tonkin, nixon and...well that whole cambodia thing would be remembered if it wasnt the least of his lies, reagan and nicaragua. these things will be remembered long after dan rather is dropped as the last footnote of obscure tv history.

How is that ironic?

the person who has started this thread wants George Bush to be removed as he was the man at the top but complains when some guy from CBS gets the same treatment.

Dan Rather took about a week to admit the story was false. George W Bush took 4 months to admit his story about the weapons of mass destruction being found was false. George W Bush still hasn't admitted his story about Iraq's growing fleet of UAVs was false. George W Bush still hasn't admitted that his story about Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet was false. George W Bush still hasn't admitted that his story about the UN weapon inspections in Iraq being a hoax was false. George W Bush still hasn't admitted that his story about the number of times John Kerry voted to increase taxes was false. There's your difference

Dan Rather took about a week to admit the story was false.
Wrong, Dan Rather has not said the story was false. He says the documents might be forged(although he waffles even here) but that the story was in essence true. And he whines about the bloggers who did within 2-3 hours what his own fact-checkers could not.

George W Bush still hasn't admitted that his story about Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet was false.
Oh, sorry, he claimed to have created the internet. Same difference. Now, had Gore said that he had supported those who created the internet it might be a different matter. Instead he personally claimed that he created the internet.

Oh, sorry, he claimed to have created the internet. Same difference. Now, had Gore said that he had supported those who created the internet it might be a different matter. Instead he personally claimed that he created the internet."I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." ---Al Gore 3/9/99 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html

He did say that he had supported those who created the Internet. That's the only thing that can be meant by a senator taking the initiative for some public project. He did not claim to have personally created the Internet. George W Bush still hasn't admitted that lie.

2) rather has a boss, bush IS the boss.
Well, the American people are his boss...we were dumb enough to rehire him.

Could we just once have an election were atleast one person doesn't completely suck?

well?
You haven't made any points that I haven't rebutted, except insulting me over incorrect info, which is totally untrue. No information I've put forth has been incorrect.

hmmmmm why ask a question with such obvious answers

1) rather is paid to tell the truth always, bush is a politician.
It is against Federal law to lie to Congress, and it is downright evil to lie to the American public to go to war. If you, like many Americans, believe that it is clear that the President lied, then he should be impeached. Because though the Iraqi war was ultimately good for the Iraqi citizens and it was a noble cause for our military, Bush has the blood of 1,000 Americans and 20,000 civilians on his hands, and some of the foreign military as well. To let that happen is to say that it's okay for Americans to die, because of the President's lying.

2) rather has a boss, bush IS the boss.
...Which gives Bush even more accountability than Rathers.

3) rather wasnt fired, just moved to a different job with a lower profie. bush suffers a loss of poltical esteem that hurts all his programs.
That's not the issue. The issue is accountability from the people. Conservatives held Rathers accountable for it.

4) rather is probably paid the same as when he was newsanchor, maybe he has lost a bit of face in a small error that will wear off over time. bush will forever be in the history books as the man who lied us into the iraq war. no matter what else he does it will be remembered.
Once again, that's not the issue. Yes, among the average person, he's lost a bit of face and so has Bush. But regardless, we're talking about Conservatives. There is a double-standard with accountability.

think of kennedy and bay of pigs, johnson and the gulf of tonkin, nixon and...well that whole cambodia thing would be remembered if it wasnt the least of his lies, reagan and nicaragua. these things will be remembered long after dan rather is dropped as the last footnote of obscure tv history.
And don't forget Reagan funding Iran as well (including Nicarague as you mentioned), even after Congress told him it was illegal and passed laws against it.

Wrong, Dan Rather has not said the story was false. He says the documents might be forged(although he waffles even here) but that the story was in essence true. And he whines about the bloggers who did within 2-3 hours what his own fact-checkers could not.
On the Larry King show, he clearly admitted the documents were forged, but merely claimed that there was no evidence CBS had anything to do with it.

And as for Rathers not claiming the story was false, Rathers doesn't assert that the story is true, either. And there's no evidence to prove that the story is false. The fact is, it's "undetermined." But don't misinterpret that, because a lot of things are undetermined. Right now, there could be secret, invisible alien spaceships from the planet, Zod, circling the Earth. Is it true? Is it false? No. It's "undetermined." Claiming something is true or false without evidence is erroneous.

To answer the question posed by the original thread:

Dan Rather's team had a chance to debunk the documents and chose not to, because the documents reflected what they personally believed. In a classic case of the MSM reporting the "news" that fit their view, they reported a "story", simply because the "story" reflected what they wanted to believe. Their zeal to bring out the "story" is best reflected in their never-ending claim that they (cBS "News") believe the documents to be "fake but accurate".

The Bush administration went through with the intelligence evidence, only after attempting to verify it through French, German, Russian, Chinese and British intelligence, all of which agreed that Saddam's regime was working on WMD. Every effort was made to corroborate the intelligence, and it was presented to the useless UN prior to going to war.

That's why Dan Rather is accountable...lack of even the most basic journalistic effort. The Bush administration made every effort to verify what the CIA was telling it.

no, i think i answered it thoroughly.

newsmen are expected to deal in only the truth, politician arent.

different job, different accountability.

different job, different punishments.

You haven't made any points that I haven't rebutted, except insulting me over incorrect info, which is totally untrue. No information I've put forth has been incorrect.


what "incorrect info, which is totally untrue" ?

Either you have MPD, or you're purposely acting stupid just to annoy me.

I'm sorry but who's insulting who?

So how have I got that?

And whats funny about checking out info? You haven't come up with one reason, your just deflecting the discussion by talking about some condition that I clearly haven't got. You started this conversation now you don't wanna talk about it.
Are you sure YOU don't have MPD?

I am stating that CBS got it wrong because they didn't check their facts and you laugh. George Bush checked his facts with the rest of the world and got it wrong, and then you think they should be treated the same?

Gata comeon.

You know that Shrub here deflects intelligent answers :D

One thing I forgot to reply to...
the person who has started this thread wants George Bush to be removed as he was the man at the top but complains when some guy from CBS gets the same treatment.
Not at all. I'm just pointing out the clear double-standard.

As for the other comments...

To answer the question posed by the original thread:

Dan Rather's team had a chance to debunk the documents and chose not to, because the documents reflected what they personally believed. In a classic case of the MSM reporting the "news" that fit their view, they reported a "story", simply because the "story" reflected what they wanted to believe. Their zeal to bring out the "story" is best reflected in their never-ending claim that they (cBS "News") believe the documents to be "fake but accurate".

The Bush administration went through with the intelligence evidence, only after attempting to verify it through French, German, Russian, Chinese and British intelligence, all of which agreed that Saddam's regime was working on WMD. Every effort was made to corroborate the intelligence, and it was presented to the useless UN prior to going to war.

That's why Dan Rather is accountable...lack of even the most basic journalistic effort. The Bush administration made every effort to verify what the CIA was telling it.
If you look in what I'd just posted in the other thread, about the CIA's intelligence on Niger's uranium, Bush clearly didn't review the documents in that instance. They put out a report, censoring the fact that there was dispute. And then he went out and said that he DID try to get uranium from Niger. If you read the unclassified version, yes, you could be misled. But if Bush just READ the CIA's unclassified report, he'd see that there was plenty of dispute that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. So, no. He's still just accountable. More accountable, because he should be held to higher standards than Rathers and CBS.

what "incorrect info, which is totally untrue" ?
I must've misinterpreted your comment when you said:
If you don't make sure info is correct then your gonna end up looking stupid.

newsmen are expected to deal in only the truth, politician arent.
Jesus Christ, man. Is that what democracy in America has become? Now, it's okay for politicians to lie?!

And Gataway, it wasn't an insult over MPD. You first supported me, in the thread about the Downing Street memo. But now, you're defending Bush. Your stance changed 180 degrees. That's why, at first, I wondered if you were just joking.

I don't think Rather ever risked American lives on the field of battle.

He did say that he had supported those who created the Internet. That's the only thing that can be meant by a senator taking the initiative for some public project. He did not claim to have personally created the Internet. George W Bush still hasn't admitted that lie.
No he didn't he said he took the initiative in creating the internet. The project was already drawn up and the people were thinking about it, all he did was get the thing bankrolled. Bankrolling something is not taking the initiative in creating.

It's more suggestion that Bush and his cronies have succeeded in establishing a personality cult in America where nothing Bush does is a sin, even where it would ruin someone else's career and maybe even get them killed had they done it.

No he didn't he said he took the initiative in creating the internet. The project was already drawn up and the people were thinking about it, all he did was get the thing bankrolled. Bankrolling something is not taking the initiative in creating.Actually, it is. George W Bush still hasn't apologized for that false claim.

Haha. Stop messing with me. And MPD is, "Multiple personality disorder."

Not to be a smartass, but Multiple Personality Disorder is a defunct term, like psychosis and psychoses. It is currently referred to in the DSM-IV as "Dissociative Identity Disorder". Not that I think it's anything a good steel-toed boot couldn't fix :P.

Actually, it is. George W Bush still hasn't apologized for that false claim.

And what false claim is that?

And Gataway, it wasn't an insult over MPD. You first supported me, in the thread about the Downing Street memo. But now, you're defending Bush. Your stance changed 180 degrees. That's why, at first, I wondered if you were just joking.

I support the fact that the Downing street memo is real, I'm just questioning the case for impeaching George Bush on the basis of what is basically a note to the cabinet that in one mans opinion Bush has always had the agenda of going to Iraq. I've questioned both sides on this and I'm trying to keep my personal feelings about Bush out of it to keep this debate good.

And what false claim is that?

wasn't this talked about earlier, something about Bush claiming that Gore said he invented the internet?

wasn't this talked about earlier, something about Bush claiming that Gore said he invented the internet?

Actually, pantylvania is probably talking about the Bad Intel that Bush used.

No he didn't he said he took the initiative in creating the internet. The project was already drawn up and the people were thinking about it, all he did was get the thing bankrolled. Bankrolling something is not taking the initiative in creating.

Actually, it is. George W Bush still hasn't apologized for that false claim.

I think this is what they are talking about

I think this is what they are talking about


Well he said GWB hasn't apologized for the false claim so I was assuming he was talking about the Intelligence. If not, I apologize.

*bows concilitory*

Well he said GWB hasn't apologized for the false claim so I was assuming he was talking about the Intelligence. If not, I apologize.

*bows concilitory*

no worries I rarely keep up anyway :D

No. At CBS, they didn't fire everyone. They fired the figurehead. The man at the top. Dan Rathers.

I say we do the same with both the U.S. and U.K. governments. The President is the "head of state" and the "commander-in-chief." He is the LEADER of all U.S. security and intelligence. George Tenet did not fail. Bush did.

Go right ahead and try. Good luck doing it... lol

it's funny how you will latch onto any excuse, no matter how laughable, to show your hatred for Bush and try to "fire" the man whom a majority of voters elected. Clinton never had a majority of the vote (since i'm sure you're going to mention the Monica escapade and Repubs pushing his impeachment).

People do realize that Dan Rather wasn't fired, he had been set to retire for a while, right?

And they also realize that many people in the US government, British government, French government, German government, UN et. alia believed that Saddam didn't have WMD's and that, moreover, if he did have them, the only way they would ever be used is upon invasion by the US, right?

People do realize that Dan Rather wasn't fired, he had been set to retire for a while, right?

And they also realize that many people in the US government, British government, French government, German government, UN et. alia believed that Saddam didn't have WMD's and that, moreover, if he did have them, the only way they would ever be used is upon invasion by the US, right?

it doesn't matter, you see, because the Left hates Bush, so he's the one they want fired.

People do realize that Dan Rather wasn't fired, he had been set to retire for a while, right?

He was asked to resign. In the Journalism line of work, that is almost, not quite but almost, the same as getting fired.

And they also realize that many people in the US government, British government, French government, German government, UN et. alia believed that Saddam didn't have WMD's and that, moreover, if he did have them, the only way they would ever be used is upon invasion by the US, right?

Hmmm...not accurate. The French, German, Russian, American, Polish, AND the UN all believed he did.

Hmmm...not accurate. The French, German, Russian, American, Polish, AND the UN all believed he did.

This is true

Hell, I hate Bush. No problems there.

Facts is facts... Except, not really.

Because independent investigations have shown that more than likely the documents CBS used in said report WERE genuine.

The claims that leaked onto the blogosphere about typewriter advances and what have you turned out to be erroneous. Other such inconsistencies that were trotted around the obviously left-wing media (that's sarcasm, you see) also seem to be little more than wishful thinking.

But because of a few questionable fine details and a media coup, the verdict was made way before any commision was able to note its findings. Curiously, the CBS analysis did say that the documents were likely forged, strange considering they had the most to lose. But of course, what option did they have? PR is as PR does. And when you appoint one of your primary accusers as your top investigator you start getting those "preconceived outcomes" everybody's talking about.

The same goes for the Newsweek Koran article. A few dissenting voices, a source that reneged on his claim and suddenly they were wrong and liars and whatever else. Even if Pentagon reports show there were abuses to The Koran, even if the CO in Cuba was heard making an apology over the loudspeakers, even if numerous independent prisoners have come forward seperately and serendipitously corroborated the story.

Man, if the left knew how to play the media nearly as well as the right I can only imagine what would happen... probably nothing good, but still. It's too bad the left can't stop running into walls like a blind autistic child at every turn.

And, once again, the idea that the entire world believed there were WMDs in Iraq without any contradictory intelligence is ludicrous. There was sizable dissention which was actively put down and filtered out by the Office of Special Projects.

Hell, I hate Bush. No problems there.

We figured that out by ourself.

Facts is facts... Except, not really.

Facts aren't facts when the facts aren't ture.

Because independent investigations have shown that more than likely the documents CBS used in said report WERE genuine.

They were proven false within 3 hours of the broadcast.

The claims that leaked onto the blogosphere about typewriter advances and what have you turned out to be erroneous.

I'm going to shoot myself since I'm asking a liberal this but proof of this statement since I haven't seen it to be erroneous yet.

Other such inconsistencies that were trotted around the obviously left-wing media (that's sarcasm, you see) also seem to be little more than wishful thinking.

Considering that everyone from the middle and on the right have debunked those memos, I find this hard to believe.

But because of a few questionable fine details and a media coup, the verdict was made way before any commision was able to note its findings. Curiously, the CBS analysis did say that the documents were likely forged, strange considering they had the most to lose.

Probably because they were forged?

But of course, what option did they have? PR is as PR does. And when you appoint one of your primary accusers as your top investigator you start getting those "preconceived outcomes" everybody's talking about.

And with good reason to talk about preconceived outcomes.

The same goes for the Newsweek Koran article. A few dissenting voices, a source that reneged on his claim and suddenly they were wrong and liars and whatever else. Even if Pentagon reports show there were abuses to The Koran, even if the CO in Cuba was heard making an apology over the loudspeakers, even if numerous independent prisoners have come forward seperately and serendipitously corroborated the story.

There were abuses of the Koran. No one is denying that. However, the soldiers didn't flush the Quaron down the toilet and that was what the newsweek article claimed. That turned out to be false. Besides that, the investigation stated that it was a detainee that did it.

Man, if the left knew how to play the media nearly as well as the right I can only imagine what would happen... probably nothing good, but still. It's too bad the left can't stop running into walls like a blind autistic child at every turn.

I will agree with you here.

And, once again, the idea that the entire world believed there were WMDs in Iraq without any contradictory intelligence is ludicrous. There was sizable dissention which was actively put down and filtered out by the Office of Special Projects.

Tell that to the UN, British, French, Spanish, Polish, Italians, Russians, etc.

Not even US intelligence agreed upon WMDs. Senator Graham got a report from all 13 intelligence agencies in the US back in October before the war. This report was stalled and jammed and confined and edited and classified before it all came out.

The intelligence community, at the end of the day, concluded that Hussein was not a threat, that if he did have WMDs he would never use them unless he was attacked... which is exactly what we did.

The Iraq government let out a 20,000 page report on the non-existence of WMDs in their country which most of the world found accurate. This report was issued in response to a virtual threat that without it we would invade. When they did so, we invaded anyway.

Most middle-eastern nations in contact with Iraq believed their WMD capacity to be, if it still existed, negligible. Many in the UN, along with many European nations, agreed.

But of course, when the elephant is breathing down your neck, who knows. The Marshall Islands believed that Iraq had WMDs. But, of course, they don't have intelligence, they have interests with the US. The same can be said for many.

Personally I doubt Powell was convinced that these weapons existed. I believe he acted how he thought he needed to act to help the country having lost what Washington insiders have dubbed "Rumsfeld's War", which was basically a massive conflict between Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. and those under the so-called Powell doctrine, including most of the military brass and the joint chiefs of staff. These people were not convinced of the existence of WMDs, even though many of these people had at one time supplied them and, considering their association with Powell, it stands to reason that the aforementioned possibility exists.

From A Research Project Report by David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director Interactive Media Research Laboratory.

ABSTRACT: The following evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter:

1. The specific font used is from a typewriter family in common use since 1905 and a typewriter capable of producing the spacing has been available since 1944.
2. The characters "e," "t," "s," and "a" show indications of physical damage and/or wear consistent with a well used typewriter.
3. The characters that are seldom used show no signs of damage or wear.
4. The quality of individual characters is inconsistent throughout the memos beyond expectations from photocopying and/or digitizing but quality is consistent with worn platen and variations in paper quality.
5. Overlapping characters occasionally indicate paper deformation consistent with hammered impressions.
6. Critical indicators of digital production or cut and paste production are missing.

Implications are that there is nothing in this evidence that would indicate the memos are inauthentic. Furthermore, from the point of view of the physical evidence in the documents (excluding any rhetorical evidence or external evidence, which is not examined in this study) no amount of additional research on the part of CBS would have lead them to exclude the documents from their 60 Minutes report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: There are a number of reasons for identifying the physical source for the recently released memos indicating that President George Bush failed to meet his obligation to the Air National Guard and disobeyed both written and spoken orders to take a flight physical.

A careful forensic examination of even the worst copies may provide some evidence of the documents' authenticity or disprove their authenticity. For example, if the evidence demonstrates that the documents were originally digitally produced, it would disprove their authenticity.

On the other hand, if evidence indicates they were typewritten, it lends support to the credibility of CBS in general and to Dan Rather and his producers in particular. If evidence demonstrates that the memos were typewritten using a font usually available in the military, but less common among civilians, at least on this evidence they were right to air the memos.

Given the current extent of political animosity, the voice of indisputable evidence can be useful. In short, there is justification for a qualified, independent lab to examine the documents and make the results publicly available.

Forensic Evaluation on the CBS Documents.

Regardless how much we wish to believe that CBS's CSI - Crime Scene Investigation television series is real and that answers to forensic evidence are 100% correct, they are not.

Forensics is a method of determining probabilities - the highest attainable - in order to then leverage other factors, such as eyewitness testimony, to produce more exact answers. It is not an exact science in most of its realms. Of those realms the least exact; in fact, the most subjective are the analysis for type and signature.

Case in point, the vast number of so-called experts that have now surfaced concerning the CBS documents. But even after scores, yes, scores of experts have stated their case, there is no certainty that either the documents are 100% authentic or 100% fake.

After the surge of Internet blogger experts, who tend to have far fewer academic credentials and tested skill, weighed in to bully the effort, noted experts are now returning to say that indeed the documents show increasing signs of validity. For the first time in modern history, the vaunted experts didn't have to prove their legitimacy and credentials within this debate. And for all of the vaunted expertise given to modern computer technology, no one has of yet been able to recreate the documents to 100% standards. According to the highest qualified experts, this is not only possible, but would be expected since computer technology is a 100% replicated format.

But once the document experts are able to whiff at the prospect, we venture back to the functional experts. Within this group of people, we find Killian's own secretary who said she didn't type the documents, and they look fake, but that the contents were accurate and absolute. And while Killian's son said the documents were fake, the secretary openly attested that the lad just didn't know what was going on.

Not even US intelligence agreed upon WMDs. Senator Graham got a report from all 13 intelligence agencies in the US back in October before the war. This report was stalled and jammed and confined and edited and classified before it all came out.

Proof of this report? I know of at least 2 intel departments that said that Hussein had WMD. The CIA was one of them.

The intelligence community, at the end of the day, concluded that Hussein was not a threat, that if he did have WMDs he would never use them unless he was attacked... which is exactly what we did.

Well apparently the world considered him a threat if they passed 17 UN Resolutions against him and that we had our forces in Saudi Arabia to defend them from the threat that Hussein posed. If he wasn't a threat, Hussein wouldn't have had 17 resolutions against him and our forces wouldn't be in Saudi Arabia prior to the attack in 2003.

The Iraq government let out a 20,000 page report on the non-existence of WMDs in their country which most of the world found accurate. This report was issued in response to a virtual threat that without it we would invade. When they did so, we invaded anyway.

They didn't include everything int hat 20,000 page report Flatearth. Therefor, they were still in violation of 1441.

Most middle-eastern nations in contact with Iraq believed their WMD capacity to be, if it still existed, negligible. Many in the UN, along with many European nations, agreed.

Negligible still means he had them. Nice try though.

But of course, when the elephant is breathing down your neck, who knows. The Marshall Islands believed that Iraq had WMDs. But, of course, they don't have intelligence, they have interests with the US. The same can be said for many.

Now how do you know that the Marshall Islands don't have intelligence?

Personally I doubt Powell was convinced that these weapons existed. I believe he acted how he thought he needed to act to help the country having lost what Washington insiders have dubbed "Rumsfeld's War", which was basically a massive conflict between Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. and those under the so-called Powell doctrine, including most of the military brass and the joint chiefs of staff. These people were not convinced of the existence of WMDs, even though many of these people had at one time supplied them and, considering their association with Powell, it stands to reason that the aforementioned possibility exists.

This is, of course, speculation. There's no proof of what you are saying that I can tell so I'll just leave it alone.

Proof of this report? I know of at least 2 intel departments that said that Hussein had WMD. The CIA was one of them.

-The report in its initially released form said that Hussein was a threat, but as it was declassified it was shown that this didn't gel with the evidence and overall opinion

Quote:
The intelligence community, at the end of the day, concluded that Hussein was not a threat, that if he did have WMDs he would never use them unless he was attacked... which is exactly what we did.


Well apparently the world considered him a threat if they passed 17 UN Resolutions against him and that we had our forces in Saudi Arabia to defend them from the threat that Hussein posed. If he wasn't a threat, Hussein wouldn't have had 17 resolutions against him and our forces wouldn't be in Saudi Arabia prior to the attack in 2003.

That's really not evidence. The US has resolutions against it via the world court, on account of Nicaragua. Does that make the US a threat? Hussein was well contained, far more so than Castro and we're not going down to kick the crap out of Cuba, are we?

Quote:
The Iraq government let out a 20,000 page report on the non-existence of WMDs in their country which most of the world found accurate. This report was issued in response to a virtual threat that without it we would invade. When they did so, we invaded anyway.


They didn't include everything int hat 20,000 page report Flatearth. Therefor, they were still in violation of 1441.

-That was the US line. Most people in the know understand the concept of MUF, materials unaccounted for. Tons of WMD material, nuclear and biological are reported MUF each year, not only in Iraq but in Russia, China and yes, even the US. Now, had there been WMDs in Iraq we could have easily concluded that they hadn't included everythin in their report. Considering that there are none, it seems as if it was comprehensive, aye?

Quote:
Most middle-eastern nations in contact with Iraq believed their WMD capacity to be, if it still existed, negligible. Many in the UN, along with many European nations, agreed.


Negligible still means he had them. Nice try though.

If you'll notice the paranthetical qualifier in that sentence, namely "if it still existed". Absolutes can be a triffle.

Quote:
But of course, when the elephant is breathing down your neck, who knows. The Marshall Islands believed that Iraq had WMDs. But, of course, they don't have intelligence, they have interests with the US. The same can be said for many.


Now how do you know that the Marshall Islands don't have intelligence?

Easy: They don't.

Flatearth? How do you know the Marshall Islands don't have Intel? You haven't shown me they don't.

Also, the whole world believed he had WMD. You cannot deny that fact. To say the world said he didn't is flat out lying.

Well apparently the world considered him a threat if they passed 17 UN Resolutions against him and that we had our forces in Saudi Arabia to defend them from the threat that Hussein posed. If he wasn't a threat, Hussein wouldn't have had 17 resolutions against him and our forces wouldn't be in Saudi Arabia prior to the attack in 2003.

UN resolutions passed against a certain country is not proof that the world considers that country a threat. Isn't Isreal in violation of more UN resolutions than any other country?

Besides, how can we try to use UN actions as justification when we were going against UN wishes with the invasion? That's not consistent logic...




Negligible still means he had them. Nice try though.

Even our US intelligence agencies now agree that Iraq had not had any WMD since the mid-90s.

By the way, let me just point out that there is potentially a *huge* difference between a FORGED document, and a document that can't be proven AUTHENTIC. And there is potentially a *huge* difference between a FALSE media report and a "the government cannot find documented evidence of this" media report.

Also, the whole world believed he had WMD. You cannot deny that fact. To say the world said he didn't is flat out lying.

Very few countries in the world believed he still had WMDs. Everyone knew he had them more than a decade ago, but very few actually believed he still had them. In fact, the only one I know of was the US...Britain went along with that, but I wonder if they really believed it, or just came along under pressure.

Look, at the time of the ingress of the Iraq war I was working for the GAO (low level stuff, nothing big) and I would have put money on there not being WMDs in Iraq.

I've got a lot of friends in various levels of political analysis who I wouldn't have been able to give 20:1 for that one.

If you believe that everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, you just weren't talking to the right people.

Additionally, the political ideology I apply to, The Realists, while not uniformly against the war (I like an ideology that shirks dogma) thought it likely that Hussein hadn't WMDs. Hans Blitz believed Iraqs weapons to be gone.

When Hussein threw inspectors out in 1998 it was widely seen as proof that they were getting close to something. That is, of course, ridiculous. He threw out inspectors because of American spies caught in their midst. Hopefully we can all agree to blame Clinton for that work of lunacy. Weapons inspectors in Iraq went crazy and hoarse trying to scream loudly enough that Saddam had no weapons.

But of course, Hans Blitz, that was only his job.

Flatearth? How do you know the Marshall Islands don't have Intel? You haven't shown me they don't.


LMFAO! Oh yes, the great Marshall Islan Secret Service infiltrated Iraq at the highest level! Damn it, they fed the CIA everything they knew.... which amounted to a great new recipe for fruit punch....Oh god, that is fucking funny.....

Also, the whole world believed he had WMD. You cannot deny that fact. To say the world said he didn't is flat out lying.


Really?

Is that what Fox News would STILL have you believe?


Well then, let us see what "the undisputed facts" were...according to the people who did NOT go to war shall we?


Putin? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/10/12/wirq12.xml)

Despite the fact that the two leaders have spoken regularly about Iraq in recent weeks, he raised Moscow's long-standing doubts that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. "Russia does not have any trustworthy data which would support the existence of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction," he said.

Mr Putin acknowledged that there were "fears" that Saddam possessed such weapons but added: "Fears are one thing. The other thing is that we do not have the objective facts to back up such fears."




Chretien?(yeah so eloquence wasn't his strong suit.) (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1031231459271_5)

"We want the inspectors to go back and finish the job," Chretien said, resisting reporters' questions about what evidence would be required for the U.S. to clinch Canada's backing against Iraq.

"The proof is the proof and when you have a good proof it's proven," he said.




Chirac? (http://slate.msn.com/id/2078503/)

said with President Putin standing by his side … that he has yet to see undisputed proof [italics Chatterbox's] that Saddam Hussein has ... weapons of mass destruction. That took the White House off guard, one senior official saying "He knows better, he has seen the same evidence we do."





Sorry, but you can take your revisionist BS and stick it. Lot's of people stated their uncertaintly, but the only thing you heard was GW's whiny-asse mantra of "but they've seen outr 'proof' so they 'must' really belive it...'

YEah right. some 'proof' :rolleyes:

At the time the whole world was asking for REAL proof. That is why Powell went with his dog-'n-pony show of made-up crap to try and convince them.... remember?

Of course, the "evidence" was so transparent and the BS smelled so bad that few could really stomach it.... or watch without giggling.



We "can't deny it?" Cornholio?


No, you just can't accept it.


But which one of us is the liar is pretty frickin' clear.

Top clarify for you, the rest of the world has suspicions, which is not generally considered to be the same as " they believed". Feel free to check out both words in a dictionary and see if you can figure out what the difference between those words is on your own.