A convicted felon who may or may not be on the Democratic payroll makes up some fake documents trying to discredit the President a few months before the election and CBS assumes they're on the up-and-up and runs with them without bothering to research them. But there's nothing wrong with this because George W Bush drank 30 years ago...
snorted coke and was caught driving drunk. Borderline felonies, methinks. Of course, now it is ok since Jesus saved his life and God talks to him everyday. Now if we could only get God to stop telling GWB to invade over, sovereign countries on cooked up intel ...
Thumbs, I don't know if you caught my post about Barnes when he first popped up recently, but I had nothing but bad things to say about him. He's been deeply involved in Texas politics for decades... a classic "child prodigy," who became a big deal in the Democratic Party (my party) very quickly. I didn't like him then, and I don't like him now. If he were selling puppies on a street corner, and they were cute as hell, and I really wanted one, I'd walk on by. I have just never trusted him. People here tend to forget that when Texas was dominated by my party, it was full of factions, very strong conservatives, moderates, liberals... who all had a voice, and an amount of influence. And there were those who were in it strictly for ego and making a buck, as there are Republicans of that ilk in Texas today, doing the same thing. (see Rick Perry, for an example) Barnes was of the last variety. You want to know what really ticks me off? I think he's telling the truth about getting Bush into that Guard unit for his Dad, (through Dad's friends) because it fits his profile... making contacts and collecting favors for later use, regardless of which party they belonged to. It was, and always has been, about the money and ego with him, in that order.
Who may or may not be on the Democratic payroll? There is zero proof that he's on the Dems payroll. But if we are talking about payrolls let's talk about the person who has top security clearance in the Bush whitehouse and committed a felony by exposing an intel agent, and Bush has done nothing about it. The person who committed the folony still has top security and may be comprimising our national security once again. The scenario I mentioned was definitely committed by someone high up in the Bush administration, there is no, 'may or may not be' on his payroll to it. I don't care about Bush's drinking. But I do care that he allows someone who comprimises national security to continue to remain employed with top security clearance.
I didn't bring up felons. I was just pointing out the difference between felonies definitely connected to one party, and felonies of which there isn't proof to connecting it to one party. At least at this time. I wasn't trying to change the subject.
Twenty Things CBS Won't Apologize For September 20, 2004 05:32:38 EDT More than likely, any CBS "apology" is going to be very tempered and likely reiterate previous network statements that "no one has challenged the content of our report." This is flatly false. A number of people have criticized CBS's reporting including the White House, President Bush's father, the Killian family, Ben Barnes's daughter Amy Barnes Stites, as well as several of Bush's former associates including Col. Walter Staudt, Col. Bobby Hodges, as well as Bush's roommate Dean Roome. These people were deliberately ignored (Killians, Staudt, Roome, Stites, Bush) or lied to (Hodges). We hope, but are not expecting, that the network will also apologize for the following: 1. Failing to use the best document experts it could find, 2. Hiring a signature expert to look at a copied document when he himself said earlier that doing such a thing was foolish, 3. Ignoring and lying about the testimony of those it did hire, 4. Failing to interview Marian Knox as well as the others listed above, 5. Not interviewing anyone directly connected with Lt. Col Killian, 6. Not informing viewers that Staudt had retired a year-and-a-half before the time he was supposedly trying to help "sugarcoat" Bush's record, 7. Failing to inform viewers that not a single verified document signed by Killian or his fellow officers during the time period used the typographical techniques used in the CBS Memos, 8. Not mentioning Ben Barnes's partisan background enough, 9. Not disclosing the 30-year friendship of the two Texas Democrats Barnes and Rather, 10. Failing to even know who producer Mary Mapes's document source was before the broadcast, 11. Dishonestly impugning the motives of critics, 12. Using its news broadcasts to defend a bad report instead of examining how it could be wrong, 13. Never once featuring a single document expert on the air who doubted CBS's claims, 14. Putting total non-experts on the air to spin the preferred "authentic" line even though CBS would not allow them to see its documents, 15. Not mentioning that Killian never kept notes and hated to type, 16. Failing to provide the public with copies of the documents as close as possible to the ones CBS obtained, 17. Not finding out if the office in which Killian worked even had a typewriter capable of duplicating most of the complex formatting used in the CBS documents (it did not), 18. Using the testimony of a vehemently anti-Bush author to prove its case and simply referring to him as an author who "wrote two books on the subject," 19. Failing to inform viewers that its document source was someone who hated George Bush, 20. Not telling viewers that one of its key (if not the key) sources was a man known to be mentally unstable and one who has lodged false accusations against Bush for years. And some more lighthearted stuff...
some of you have attempted to draw this parallel in the past, but unfortunately, the forged yellowcake documents came to light after SOTU, and had nothing to do w/ W's case for war. there may be legitimate nits one can pick w/ Bush's reasons for invading iRaq, but this is not one of them.
or . . .. . bush and is cronies planted the story and the documents knowing they could spring the IT IS FORGED trap anytime. . . . . OCTOBER SURPRISE COME EARLY Rocket River c - o -n spiracy
do people really think this? is this really the first idea that pops in your head?? this is a product of the whole "team" politics thing. certinly "my team" would never do something like forge documents...so it must have been planted on them by the "other team." unbelievable. politics blows.
O! the irony! http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/p...=eb737817b4bc75de&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland -- "CBS News said yesterday that the producer of its flawed report about President Bush's National Guard service violated network policy by putting a source in touch with a top aide to Senator John Kerry. "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda," the network said in a statement. "
And then what happened Uncle Basso? link Classic case of watch the bunny folks by the White House to distract the public from real issues. Watch the bunny. WATCH the FREAKIN' BUNNY DAMMIT!!!
once again, you've missed the point. this isn't about what lockhart may or maynot have discussed with Burkett, although i admit that's of interest. it's about the impropriety of CBS coordinating anti-bush info between third party partisans and the kerry campaign.
really? and you know this how? has novak written a column? perhaps "josh" told you? please, enlighten me.