Mary Mapes Fired Over Fake Bush Letters

The BBQ Pit
61

Coulter, Limbaugh, Novak, and O’Reilly are not in the same position as CBS News reports - they don’t claim to be presenting the news in an objective manner. Their entire raison d’etre is to add their commentary to the news – to argue, in effect, for a particular interpretation of the news, to editorialize.

Now, that said, I believe that they should be held accountable for lies as well, if their lies are in the facts. In other words, Limbaugh may report that the ACLU is suing to prevent a school from offering prayer at graduation, and say, “You see, folks, the liberals won’t be happy until the mere mention of ‘God’ is illegal.”

That’s permissible.

It’s IMPERMISSIBLE for his report about the ACLU to be false, however.

Do you see the distinction?

Now, I think Coulter and Limbaugh have both been gulity of the real offense of playing loose with the facts. And I agree that their employers should fire them.

I’d ask for a cite for an O’Reilly lie.

I assume the Novak issue is Valerie Plame. The accusation there isn’t about his lying at all.

62

We’ll never know. But the fact that she contacted the Kerry Camp re the story prior to it being aired certainly gives it the odor of political bias. Would she have contacted the Bush camp had they gotten ahold of a similar Kerry bashing story? That’s for Mapes to say.

63

Bricker, you’ve heard about the forest and the trees, right? Can you see how that applies?

We’re not in court. You don’t have to use the defense-attorney act here, looking around everywhere for something to use as an argument to defend someone you feel bound to defend. You’re *not * so bound except by your voluntary partisanship, however total that may be. You can be honest here. It’s okay, really.

64

Bricker, they FIRED her ass. What difference does it make WHAT her motive was? CBS dealt with the issue, about as harshly as is possible. If there was a leftish bias that made them leap on the story, it is certainly gone now, in her case. I’ll bet others are going to be considerably less prone to partisanship. And haste. And I didn’t MEAN to get all Biblical on you, but what I see is a lot of people who support the blackest of sinners, throwing stones. Come back when your own house is clean.

65

Sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone else. Sharpton is a Democrat, there is no evidence of systematic voter fraud, and the Right is the side who put together a coalition and kicked the torturer out of power. It is the lefties who wanted to leave him in place.

Regards,
Shodan

66

You were doing so well until this. Some of us on the right would be quite happy if Coulter, Limbaugh, Novak and O’Reilly went away. Bricker made the point that opinion is different than news reporting, and 60 Minutes is supposed to be news reporting.

I’ve seen enough errors in Coulter’s stuff to say that she should be discredited unless she does better fact-checking (but at least she got me reading about the Venona papers–fascinating stuff). I don’t listen to Limbaugh or O’Reilly because they’re more about themselves than anything else. O’Reilly’s a pervert and a megalomaniac but I haven’t seen anyone seriously challenge his accuracy (I’m sure I’ll see several responses with links, which I’ll be happy to look at).

67

So it’s only torture if Saddam did it, but when wesick dogs on prisoners and beat them, it’s OK? Good to know.

I stand by my words. Your personal distaste for Coulter and friends is irrelevant; you support the party that is firmly allied with them. Your party, the party you support, employs torture as a routine interrogation tool. Your party, is led by crooks, racists, and anti-science activists like Tom DeLay and Trent Lott.
I’m not angry at your party, and I’m not going to get into partisan fights because I’ve written off any hope of reaching the right-wing. I want the Democrats to reach the center, to speak to the concerns of everyday Americans–jobs, rights, faith, and country. That’s the key to winning.

68

Ah, yes, your trick of deflecting the inquiry by suggesting it’s a lawyer trick.

How about answering the question? Was Mapes acting in partisan manner, trying to help the Democrats or injure the Bush campaign? Or was she motivated by a desire to get the story out FAST, and would have done the same for a Kerry-bashing story?

69

Strange–your post above referred to “the right”, not any party. And what do you know of my party affiliation?

<sarcasm>You’re an idiot, no offense intended</sarcasm>
Somehow I find your sincerity lacking.

A little hint: anti-Republican screeds don’t typically reach the center.

70

Shame on you. Don’t let your frustration with homophobes override your common sense, don’t toss away a multi-year history of level headedness just to be another shrill partisan hack.

71

Shrill? Moi? In my state of Virginia, the state legislation is preparing to submit aanother anti-gay measure, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I reckon they weren’t content with the law banning same-sex property contracts. Go ahead and guess which party is sponsoring the amendment.

And why shame on me? Are you saying that Delay and Lott aren’t crooks and racists? Are you saying that the current GOP administration has not okayed the use of torture on prisoners? Is the GOP not run by people who are actively trying to criminalize my love life? How is stating the facts being “a partisan hack”?

You’re a Mormon. I heard of a Mormon Democrat before, but they charge $5.00 to see him at the museum.

72

Well, that’s pretty stupid. I suspect in a calmer moment, you might realize that. And accusing Bricker of anything of the sort is just a freaking lie.

Don’t be a moron, OK? We got Evil Captor, we got ElvisL1ves, we got annaplurabelle and a whole raft load of paranoid, dishonest fat heads raving this anti-Bush shit 24 hours a day. We don’t need any more.

“Reaching the center” with this kind of shit? Fuck that.

Regards,
Shodan

73

Ah, yes, your technique of grabbing on to a little tiny piece of a problem that you feel comfortable with, pretending that that’s the entire issue, and ignoring the rest. Sorry, that shit don’t work here, and you damn well oughta know by now. You’re maintaining your fascination with and total concentration on the CBS story but have nothing whatever to say about the character of the man you’ve so gloatingly supported as President of the United States. That is utterly irresponsible of you as well as gullible.

Most likely the latter, with perhaps an awareness of the former derived from her knowledge that Bush had had virtually a free ride from the media on his “service” so far. Naturally, as an blindly-loyal Republican partisan, you’d think it entirely the former. True enough?

Now how about addressing the question of the extensive list of rabid-partisan talking heads on TV, including the alleged “news” on Fox, that somehow seem to avoid even the lightest criticism from you, much less their firings? Can you address that problem honestly? Note in passing the heavy blurring of the once-serious distinction between news and commentary.

74

I guess you don’t consider the Senate Minority leader a Democrat?

75

You voted for Bush, who appointed Rumsfeld and nominated Alberto Gonzalez, the author of the reprehensible memo, to the post of Attorney General. You voted for prisoners being beaten, starved, and abused at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It’s the policy of the man you voted for, ergo, it’s your and Bricker’s policy.

If I get my facts wrong, please correct me. If Bush’s appointees didn’t authorize torture, if the GOP hasn’t sponsored anti-gay legislation, if Bush didn’t start a morass of a war under false pretenses, then I humbly apologize. I’m not a lefty wingnut. I don’t have a lot of use for them. Given the choice, I’d be an Eisenhower Republican. but that partty died a long time ago, replaced by a dishonest, vicious gang intent on gaining and keeping power at any cost.

Your politics are ugly and hateful and I want no part of them. And just so we’re clear on what I’m for:

A balanced budget
Attacking and killing Al Qaeda
Civil liberties.
Small government, including less government intrusion into private life
Ethics in government
More jobs and economic opportunity for Americans, not just the super-rich
Help for the indigent elderly and mentally ill

To name just a few things.

As for the war, I’m glad Bush got rid of Saddam, but chaos is not an improvement over tyranny. Our occupation of Iraq has been badly mishandled, yet no GOP Doper has the honesty to admit that we’ve made any errors in Iraq.

You’re not the center, you’re the extreme right wing. Don’t pretend that you would have voted for anyone other than Dubya even if Jesus Christ were his opponent. You’re not reachable because no argument, no persuasion, no matter how gentle, will sway you from supporting things that I regard as thoroughly wicked.

76

Harry Reid? Hardly. Like Zell Miller, he’s a GOPer in Democrat clothing.

So, 'fess up–are you a Dem or a Pub?

77

You voted for Kerry.

Kerry opposed same-sex marriage. It was his stated policy.

Ergo, you oppose same-sex marriage.

You self-hating bigoted queer, you.

78

And in addition to Reid, there was Mo Udall (and then his brother Stewart, his son Mark, and his nephew Tom). Nice guys, the Udalls.

And then the novelist Orson Scott Card is a Democrat, technically. He’s just really socially conservative.

79

Ah, but Kerry also opposed amending the US consittution to ensure the second-class status of gay people, something Bush intends to push. Given the choice between neglect and persecution, I’ll take neglect. Seeing that both Kerry and Bush opposed gay marriage, the issue makes no difference. Now can you show me evidence to support that Kerry also supported the torture of prisoners?

80

::looks around::

Weren’t there some goalposts here just a moment ago?

Oh, look! There they are – way the fuck over there!

The claim of yours that I was rebutting was a simple one:

You now acknowledge that the issue is more complex than that.

Kerry’s support or rejection of particular procedures for handling prisoners is entirely hypothetical. He was never in a position to decide on, approve, or even recommend specifics in this area. I have no idea what Kerry would have decided were he in the Oval Office at the time such decisions were necessary, and neither do you.

So I can’t show you any proof about Kerry - he was never in a position to make that call.

I don’t agree that Bush supported torture, either. I don’t agree that the prisoners were properly handled under the Geneva accords, because they were not prisoners of war. They were unlawful combatants. I don;t believe Bush authorized the specific abuses that were extant, either.

All of this is secondary to the only point I was trying to forcefully make: you vote for someone based on the choices available. It is not an endorsement of each and every position they hold. I am against the death penalty - Bush favors it. My vote for Bush was in spite of his death penalty stance, not in support of it. You voted for Kerry not because each and every position he held was something you supported, but because of the two candidates, he was the best choice in your mind. That’s why I voted for Bush. Don’t you dare try to turn that vote into ringing approbation of all things the man stands for. I have plenty of problems with Bush. I just had MORE with Kerry.