Talk is cheap. I imagine 2006 will be a repeat of 2004: claim that you have a majority of support all the way up to the election, then scream about how stupid and easily fooled the electorate is, then claim the majority is again swinging over to your side.
Any efforts to ask you to back up your brave predictions by putting something of value besides talk on the line will be rejected as juvenile.
And you know what? I can live with that system. Democrats of your stripe will get to talk and talk, whine and whine, protest and boycott. Republicans will actually get elected. I believe that is a perfect division of roles and responsibilities.
I don’t understand. It sound to me like you are saying you have some recent polling data that indicates Bush actually didn’t win the election. I can’t imagine that you’re suggesting that, so I assume I’m reading your post incorrectly. What polls exactly show what conclusion?
Not sure where you got that idea. I see no conclusive evidence stating that they were forgeries. There is no 100% committment to that conclusion. Wording is done in such a way that nobody can honestly state they were a forgery. As is with this case, they may not be able to authenticate a document from a Xerox copy, but surely they can discredit it. But with Mirian Knox’s recalling, even that isn’t happening.
The polls taken since the very recent election that show a majority of people think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and that the invasion of Iraq wasn’t a good idea. Ironic that the majority would vote for Bush under those conditions, don’t you think? You do know what irony means, yes?
But maybe the polls are wrong, just as the exit polls were said to be wrong. How could I know for sure, either way? Only an opinion about an ironic occurence. Not suggesting anything else.
Sure is. I only paid five bucks to post here. How much did you pay?
I don’t recall saying anything about the “stupidity” of the electorate. That’s some imagination you’ve got there.
Are you again proposing a wager? Thing is, I don’t want or need your money. What to do with someone like that? Don’t answer - it’s a rhetorical question - I’ve already learned that lesson, thankyouverymuch.
Your imagination notwithstanding, I am not a Democrat. But I guess it’s easier for you to imagine the world in such black and white terms. Just a guess, mind you - similar to imagining - nothing that needs to be retracted, should someone think I’m deliberately spouting lies…
Oh, by the way, the title of this thread is the ultimate in conservative lies. Much like Cheney after the Duelfer Report came out. Something akin to the report proving the administration’s claims about Iraq having WMDs. Once the people read the actual report, it’s quite obvious his, as well as the OP’s title is not being honest.
The fact of the matter is not the authenticity of the memos, but that Bush got preferential treatment.
So the bigger question here is why were conservatives demanding the firing of Dan Rather over these documents, despite his acknowledgement and apology within a week of the discovery, but were unconcerned with media outlets that aired the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth after their lies, inconsistencies, and contrary statements came to light, media outlets that have never apologized for airing such falsehoods?
Your name IRL wouldn’t happen to be Dan Rather, would it?
The fact of the matter is that CBS (and Rather, who has a well-known disdain for, and occasional confrontations with, Republican presidents) used forged documents to try to sway the outcome of an election. They claimed the documents had been verified, only to have the verifiers themselves not only deny the documents’ authenticity but state they warned CBS that the documents indeed could not be verified. (I don’t know about you, but this would be lying in my book.) And then, when it became obvious CBS could no longer stand behind the authenticity of the documents, Rather comes out and says in effect that it doesn’t matter because Bush got preferential treatment anyway and that is the real story.
You know, just like you’re doing now.
If it’s a simple fact that Bush got preferential treatment, why the great necessity of of vetting the documents and verifying their authenticity? Because to make a claim, you need proof. If the proof is bogus, nothing is proven! What it purports to be proof of may or may not actually be the case, but you can’t just dismiss purported proof when it turns out to be false and then claim that what it purports to prove exists anyway and that the proof itself isn’t really even necessary anyway.
And this hooey about their hastiness to get the story out due to competitive pressures is absolute bullshit in my opinion. Has anyone heard of any other news source about to break the story? No, this malarkey is just to provide CBS and Rather’s newsroom with cover when the very obvious question is asked about why, if they weren’t out to get Bush, there was such a driving passion to forgo proper vetting and broadcast a report that hadn’t been fully investigated.
I haven’t had much use for CBS News ever since the Jeffery Wigand affair.
CBS led the guy on, then hung him out to dry because real news took a back seat to a business deal.
Far as I’m concerned, CBS made it very clear where their priorities were, right then and there.
I find it hard to believe that they’d deliberately launch a falsehood in order to weaken Bush’s reelection campaign, but I don’t find it hard to believe at all that they’d launch what they thought was a big story without adequately checking the facts.
I was being obliquely facetious, which I thought was pretty obvious as of course there is no difference.
I suppose I should make fun of you for not getting it, but the sad truth is considering the rampant outrageous partisan generalizations being thrown around with dead seriousness, my facetiousness was not necessarily as obvious as I hoped. Which is kind of sad.
Oh well, new year and all. Wanna bury the hatchet, make nice and be my friend again, Minty?
It’s almost comical, how some will go to such lengths to deny the existance of political bias within the establishment media, despite the evidence. And what’s puzzling, is why so some get so worked up when evidence of such bias is pointed out.
Want evidence? Okay.
Mary Mapes’ contacting Joe Lockhart, of the Kerry campaign, with information that “might be useful”, is undeniable evidence of political bias being a motivating factor within this so-called “breaking news”.
Wait, I thought this was breaking news of the magnitude that CBS would risk it’s reputation just to “get the scoop”. Now you’re tellin’ me this was “little more than a footnote”?
And despite CBS terminating the employment of some of those involved, a cover-up is still ongoing.
The source of the actual forgery is still not known, and there seems to be little interest in finding it.
I think they wanted the story out before the election. That was the source of the pressure. Although it was probably whats-his-name who forged the documents who deliberately waited until the eve of the election to spring it. CBS had already convinced themselves that all the major accusations against Bush were true, and thus it was that much easier to convince themselves that the documents were probably true. And they never expected anyone to be able to poke holes in their “evidence” in the few days before Election Day.
They underestimated, in other words, the intelligence of the Bush supporters.
The panel found that this was not evidence of political bias. While certainly improper, they found that her motive for the contact was to increase the pressure on Burkett… in other words, do him this favor, so he’d be more inclined to turn over the papers he had.
Given the effort that went into their fact-finding, I believe them. Mapes’ own testimony, standing alone, I discount as completely self-serving. But the panel interviewed everyone associated with this disgraceful affair, compared accounts and timelines, and weighed the credibility of everyone. When Mapes’ testimony conflicted with others, it was clear that the panel concluded she was lying.
Based on their extensive and, I believe, unbiased review, I’m prepared to accept their findings on everything.
It appears that the ‘of counsel’ law firm that probably did most of this investigation for it’s client, CBS, suffered from an overabundance of caution – especially on the issue of whether these documents were forgeries. Just forgetting political bias for a moment — by what logic do they ignore the literal ‘mountain of evidence’ that these documents were forgeries - and come to the conclusion that ‘a conclusion can’t be reached’ on the issue. Laughable. I mean what standard are these guys using? Reasonable doubt? Meets it. Preponderance of the evidence? Don’t even go there. Just total bullshit IMO.
I wouldn’t expect the panel to touch the issue of political bias-- it’s just too hard to prove and too controversial. And again, I think some people are confusing the varying degrees of bias possible. It’s not an either/or situation-- either “rush to press” or political bias, and it’s not an issue of whether CBS, as a whole, is politically biased. It’s just hard to imagine that Mapes’ political leanings didn’t predispose her to be less cautious in vetting the documents than she otherwise would have been.
Seriously… this guy Burkett is as close to a raving lunatic as they come on the issue of Bush. As in my extension of** 'luc’s** analogy earlier, it was almost as if Ann Coulter had handed some docuemnts about Kerry to a network and they felt they had a “scoop”. Coulter is more well known, but no less of a nut case than Burkett is. Listen to the news commentators like Chris Matthews (no Bush apologist for sure) and he can hardly contain his laughter when talking about Burkett and the idea that anyone would consider him a credible source.
Just a little something for those who remain in doubt regarding the Panel’s bizarre “non-conclusions” concerning the authenticity of the Killian documents. The Panel apparently made ONE inquiry into the technical side of whether the documents were forgeries or not. Bet you thing that inquiry resulted in a non-conclusion. Wrong. That inquiry is noted in the Panel’s report, at Appendix 4. The expert used is Peter Tytell. Mr. Tytell’s qualifications are also noted in that appendix. Here are his conclusions – in a nutshell.
Bolding mine -
Click the link and read the details. Note – there is no other technical evidence regarding these forgeries for the Panel to consider. http://cbsnews.com/forward/wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf
Now — how or why the Panel decides this isn’t good enough to draw a conclusion – is why beyond my meager powers of observation. But, they did. Spineless if you’re asking –
Perhaps they were duped by that craven liberal operative, the secretary. This insidious granny-lady publicly stated her opinion that the documents were, in fact, forgeries but that they reflected Col. Killian’s actual views, as related to her on numerous occasions.
That said, I wish to extend my warm regard for stern censure for anyone who, knowingly or unknowingly, promotes disinformation on matters of public policy. Such persons should be fired. Or impeached. Whichever is most applicable. I applaud the Tighty Righties born-again committment to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and applaud thier efforts to root out such as these.
I humbly suggest that there are other targets for this righteous wrath, now that the dreadful menace of liberal bias has been addressed. Having warmed up on the hillock of CBS, perhaps now they are prepared to scale the Everest of Horseshit. I stand ready to heap glowing approval on such, the very instant they begin!
I might be willing to pay you more to shut up, but it’s unlikely, considering how much you’re likely making under the current scheme.
In any event, the statement of Marian “Grandma” Knox is that she said the statements were true ONLY BECAUSE SHE WAS ASSURED THE CONTENT WAS ACCURATE. In other words, she told the panel that she never would have agreed the memo contents were true unless CBS had assured her they already had authenticated the memos. REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL, Section G, page 24.
