Dems vs. Bush2 and Pubs vs. Obama

[elucidator]

I can certainly see a lot of equivalence in the two men, if you ignore the body count.

[Shodan]

@SeldomSeen

Refresh my memory please. Which “forged documents” are we discussing here?
If you’re talking about GWB’s National Guard service record, I believe it was later proven to be valid.
SS

I meant* the forged documents that CBS used on 60 Minutes to try to discredit Bush, and your belief is mistaken.

Regards,
Shodan

*Not the memo that Halperin sent out before the 20904 election telling his news people to slant their coverage against Bush to try to keep him from being re-elected - that was a genuine document.

[madmonk28]

Even taking the forged National Guard records as a given, that is still only one incident and when it was revealed it ended the careers of many of the people involved. Fox news is a 24 hour loop of criticism of Obama, much of it personal and racist. Remember that the First Lady was referred to as Obama’s baby daddy on Fox and that an onstage greeting was called a terrorist fist bump. Fox even criticized Obama for drinking a Budweiser instead of an American beer. There simply is no comparison between how Obama and Bush were treated by the media.

[BobLibDem]

The outrage against Bush was because of things he did. When he started his first term, there were no Democratic Senators vowing that their number one priority was to deny him re-election. Democrats did not filibuster virtually every legislative initiative. Many derided his intelligence, simply because he talked like an idiot. But most of the invective was not personal, it was outrage at his squandering of the Clinton surplus and his making a Mess O’Potamia.

Contrast that to the universal outrage among Republicans against Obama, largely driven by who he was. The health care plan, basically a resubmittal of the 1993 Republican plan, was “socialism”. Republicans were unanimous in opposition to the stimulus and claimed it would create zero jobs, all the while applying for stimulus funds in their districts and praising the jobs it would create. There were demands that he give Bush credit for getting bin Laden and claims that Obama deserved no credit, despite the fact that Obama did what McCain specifically said he would not do- go after binLaden in Pakistan.

There is simply no comparison between Fox’s treatment of Obama and real journalists’ treatment of Bush. The faux outrage at CBS is just a right wing vendetta against Dan Rather- while the documents’ authenticity has not been proven, the truth of the contents has been. Bush got into the National Guard because of his father’s influence. Yet somehow the right wing press transformed Bush into Rambo while turning a guy who actually took a hit in Vietnam into a coward. The Halperin memo was not instructions to go after Bush, it was merely instructions to ABC News staff that they needn’t create a false equivalency between the tactics of the Bush and Kerry campaigns- if Bush was telling more lies than Kerry there was no need to act as if the parties were equally guilty of lying. Somehow in the right wing mindset, being freed from the requirement to act as though Kerry was being as dirty as Bush is equivalent to being instructed to slant the news toward Kerry.

[Little_Nemo]

@jsgoddess

I don’t think such claims were unheard of under Bush. He was part of a neo-con conspiracy to do… something.

The “something” was Bush would start a war on false pretenses. And like the election issue, you’ve got to concede this one wasn’t made up out of thin air.

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

*Not the memo that Halperin sent out before the 20904 election telling his news people to slant their coverage against Bush to try to keep him from being re-elected - that was a genuine document.

No such memo exists.

[Bricker]

@SeldomSeen

Refresh my memory please. Which “forged documents” are we discussing here?
If you’re talking about GWB’s National Guard service record, I believe it was later proven to be valid.
SS

No, those documents were forged, and there was no later event proving them valid. See Wikipedia’s page:

On January 5, 2005, the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday Segment “For the Record” Concerning President Bush’s Air National Guard Service was released.[104] The purpose of the panel was to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast, to examine the circumstances surrounding the subsequent public statements and news reports by CBS News defending the segment, and to make any recommendations it deemed appropriate. Among the Panel’s conclusions were the following:
The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment were:
The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;
The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;
The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;
The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;
The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents “were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files”;
The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;
The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;
The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;
The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and
The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry — a clear conflict of interest — that created the appearance of a political bias.
Once questions were raised about the September 8 Segment, the reporting thereafter was mishandled and compounded the damage done. Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:
The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;
Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;
The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;
The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;
The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and
Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.
[edit]Panel’s view of the documents
The Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the authenticity of the Killian documents, but consulted Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner and typewriter and typography expert. Tytell had been contacted by 60 Minutes producers prior to the broadcast, and had informed associate producer Yvonne Miller and executive producer Josh Howard on September 10 that he believed the documents were forgeries. The Panel report stated, “The Panel met with Peter Tytell, and found his analysis sound in terms of why he thought the documents were not authentic…The Panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects.”

The basic problem with the documents was that they were purportedly created in 1973 on a typewriter, yet used fonts, justification settings, and kerning spacing consistent with MS Word’s default settings.

Have you really been harboring a belief all this time that the documents were not forgeries??

Is this an example of the left’s appreciation for hard science and facts?

[madmonk28]

Again, this was one incident and it ended the careers of many of the people involved. It pales in comparison to Fox News’ multi-year long smear campaign against Obama.

[CaptMurdock]

@Bricker

Is this an example of the left’s appreciation for hard science and facts?

More like an example of Karl Rove’s facility for dirty tricks.

[Evil_Captor]

@jsgoddess

I don’t think such claims were unheard of under Bush. He was part of a neo-con conspiracy to do… something.

Project for a New American Century was the group. Bush was not a member, but Cheney and Rumsfeld were. They wanted to invade Iraq. It’s all true, you can look it up.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

No, those documents were forged, and there was no later event proving them valid. See Wikipedia’s page:

The basic problem with the documents was that they were purportedly created in 1973 on a typewriter, yet used fonts, justification settings, and kerning spacing consistent with MS Word’s default settings.

Have you really been harboring a belief all this time that the documents were not forgeries??

Is this an example of the left’s appreciation for hard science and facts?

You’re obscuring together some separate issues. Maybe knowingly.

One issue is whether George W. Bush used family influence to avoid service in Vietnam.

Another issue is whether he performed the obligations of his National Guard service.

And a separate issue is whether the documents used by CBS in their reports on the previous issues were forgeries.

Now I don’t think anyone who’s credible will dispute that the evidence CBS had was based on forgeries. So they don’t prove anything about the other two issues. But they also don’t disprove anything about the other two issues either.

The conservative line is that one set of evidence was false and therefore all of the allegations are false. This does not logically follow.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

People hated Bush because of Iraq. I became a Democrat because of Iraq.

People hated Obama for being a Democrat and having ideas that are consistent with teh Democratic platform. Oh yeah and he’s black.

[Evil_Captor]

@madmonk28

Again, this was one incident and it ended the careers of many of the people involved. It pales in comparison to Fox News’ multi-year long smear campaign against Obama.

But it’s an EQUIVALENCE! There is one case of false documents used against Bush. So what if what those documents purported to prove was true? So what if Obama has been subjected to MUCH more vilification than Bush? So what if the vilification of Obama is mostly groundless and the vilification of Bush had plenty of truth behind it? So what if the people who most actively vilified Bush were bloggers and such, while the people who have vilified Obama have been major Republican leaders, Presidential candidates and such?

Bush was vilified by Democrats, Obama is vilified by Republicans. It’s an EQUIVALENCE! So they’re both EXACTLY the same!

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

You’re obscuring together some separate issues. Maybe knowingly.

One issue is whether George W. Bush used family influence to avoid service in Vietnam.

Another issue is whether he performed the obligations of his National Guard service.

And a separate issue is whether the documents used by CBS in their reports on the previous issues were forgeries.

Now I don’t think anyone who’s credible will dispute that the evidence CBS had was based on forgeries. So they don’t prove anything about the other two issues. But they also don’t disprove anything about the other two issues either.

The conservative line is that one set of evidence was false and therefore all of the allegations are false. This does not logically follow.

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact the George W Bush used family connections to avoid combat service.

So far as I’m aware, there is at least some, non-conclusive evidence as to the proposition that he failed to perform his National Guard service. I regard that as unproven, but admit I’m not fully informed and an certainly willing to learn something new.

I agree with you that the documents used by CBS were obvious forgeries.

My tongue-in-cheek comment was directed not at the overall controversy, but at SeldomSeen’s idea that the documents were vindicated. Nothing beyond that.

The lack of seriousness of my comment was indicated by the smiley.

[Saint_Cad]

@MrDibble

Whereas Obama has been attacked with completely racist shit since his candidacy.

@Damuri_Ajashi

People hated Obama for being a Democrat and having ideas that are consistent with teh Democratic platform. Oh yeah and he’s black.

Give me one quote from any prominant Republican that is specifically racist. Accusing someone for not being born in this country is not racist as it has been thrown around before with white candidates. And as I explained in a post above, my experience has been that when a Dem plays the race card it means that “anti-Obama” = “racist”

[Bricker]

@Evil_Captor

But it’s an EQUIVALENCE! There is one case of false documents used against Bush. So what if what those documents purported to prove was true? So what if Obama has been subjected to MUCH more vilification than Bush? So what if the vilification of Obama is mostly groundless and the vilification of Bush had plenty of truth behind it? So what if the people who most actively vilified Bush were bloggers and such, while the people who have vilified Obama have been major Republican leaders, Presidential candidates and such?

Bush was vilified by Democrats, Obama is vilified by Republicans. It’s an EQUIVALENCE! So they’re both EXACTLY the same!

I don’t agree with this. For CBS News to use forged documents so close to the election was a huge issue. I don’t believe your claim that what those documents purported to prove was true. I don’t agree with your balance assessment regarding the amounts of truth behind the Bush and Obama vilification respectively, with the exception that the Birther controversy was completely groundless, and perhaps averaging that in tips the scales irrevocably in favor of Obama as the bigger victim.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact the George W Bush used family connections to avoid combat service.

So far as I’m aware, there is at least some, non-conclusive evidence as to the proposition that he failed to perform his National Guard service. I regard that as unproven, but admit I’m not fully informed and an certainly willing to learn something new.

I agree with you that the documents used by CBS were obvious forgeries.

My tongue-in-cheek comment was directed not at the overall controversy, but at SeldomSeen’s idea that the documents were vindicated. Nothing beyond that.

The lack of seriousness of my comment was indicated by the smiley.

SeldomSeen said that he believed “GWB’s National Guard service record” was valid, not the documents CBS had used.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

No such memo exists.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Would that be an excerpt from the memo…or yet another of your entries in the Non Sequitur of the Year contest?

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

I don’t agree with this. For CBS News to use forged documents so close to the election was a huge issue. I don’t believe your claim that what those documents purported to prove was true. I don’t agree with your balance assessment regarding the amounts of truth behind the Bush and Obama vilification respectively, with the exception that the Birther controversy was completely groundless, and perhaps averaging that in tips the scales irrevocably in favor of Obama as the bigger victim.

The documents, fakes though they are, generally support the notion that Bush was a boozing, probably coke-swigging party boy during his (bought by Daddy) National Guard service, who probably shirked his duty to some extent. Since there’s PLENTY of evidence to support this, I tend to believe it. You’re welcome to believe whatever you like, Bricker. There is not doubt however that Kerry was a veteran who risked his life in service to his country while Bush partied in Texas. Yet the media were unable to see the Swift Boating for the obvious obfuscation that it was. They were so eager for the safe, easy setup as “objective” that they went for the false equivalence big time, saying, “Some say that Bush evaded service in Vietnam by joining the National Guard, while others say that Kerry’s service record in Vietnam is not completely accurate.” When the simple, obvious truth was: Kerry=combat veteran and Bush=National Guard party boy.

Slice it and dice it however you like, Bricker. Them’s the facts.