Idle Political Speculation on Forged Documents

[Ksyrup]

BTW, as if anyone really needed convincing that Dan Rather is a biased goober masquerading as an objective journalist, check out this site:

http://www.ratherbiased.com/

The Compare & Contract section is pretty interesting.

[Glengoyne]

I don't think the "Prowler" piece is very useful, nor does it shed any light on the subject. Especially with all of the "CBS insiders did this" type stuff. Pretty much all unverifyable information unattributed to any source.

I think the ratherbiased site has "bias" right in it's name, so it's content needs to be weighed accordingly. There are a couple of points I did get from there.
-First is that apparently the typist used the alpha lower case "L" key instead of the numeric "1" key to type the number 1. This apparently was an old typist's trick to help increase WPM. Since the "trick" is not commonly used or taught today, it is a very nice "period" detail to have included in the memos. I think this is the single biggest piece of "positive" evidence CBS has come up with. Well maybe actually the biggest would be the signature, but since we are dealing with photocopies of photocopies it would not be that difficult to slip in valid signature.

-Secondly the overlay argument. I saw someone mention this on MSNBC yesterday, and sort of glossed over it in my mind. Apparently one can recreate the document(s) in Word, print them on a transparency, and overlay them exactly over the memo(s). That point was used to illustrate that the documents can absolutely be produced in MS Word. The point made on the ratherbiased site is that in reality how likely would it be that someone 30 years ago created a document that would be easilly and identically reproduced in a wordprocessing software running on a computer that hadn't yet been invented. The point made was that it was very near a mathematical certainty that it could not occur. I'm no mathematician, but I think highly unlikely would suffice. NOTE:I used the words document(s) and memo(s) above because I am unsure if the MSNBC pundit was talking about the overlay trick with regard to one or all of the documents.

[Dutch]

Now if the Kerry Campaign did have something to do with it, would it be MicrosoftWord-Gate?

[sterlingice]

From an ICQ conversation with a conservative friend of mine (I love talking political strategy with him because we both like to divorce the ideologies from the pure politics)

Me: considering how much of a horse and buggy show it is over there at the DNC, you think it's most likely that they fell for some easily forged and planted evidence or gross incompetence won out?
Friend: At this point, I give it a 50-50 shot on whether an incompetent Democrat forged them or a wily Republican forged them, then conveniently dropped them right in from the Democratic national party headquarters.
Me: either way, it's backfiring in a big way for the Dems because we still seem to be shouting back and forth about things that happened 30 years ago and no one cares

SI

[CamEdwards]

watching the nightly defense of their story on the CBS Evening News is now better political comedy than The Daily Show.

I hear Dan Rather's going to have John Edward channel the spirit of Jim Killian tomorrow in order to confirm he wrote the memos.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by gtmarc

Amazing how the Republicans can change the topic and how most people will willingly follow them.

There was actually something important on this story this last week, that the Republican smoke screen about typewriters has managed to mostly obscure.

The story about Bush and the National Guard had previously been that the Texas National Guard had released him from any further service so that he could attend Harvard Business School.

Now its emerged that the Texas National Guard did not release Lt. Bush early. They did say he could go to Harvard, but the condition was that Lt. Bush sign on with a National Guard unit in Massachusetts. There's absolutely no record of Lt. Bush ever contacting the MA National Guard.

The day after I saw that, this bs about the typewriters and the CYA Memo to File document began.

Amazing to me that here we are in a war, with a government that's constantly saying we need to give up our rights for security, and in an economy that's losing jobs and if anything barely out of a recession, and both the Democrats and Republicans seem mainly to want to talk about what these two did during Vietnam.

I don't like Democrats or Republicans, but to me this Bush crew has been so incompetent they need to go.

You would think people could figure it out by now. When you LIE about one part of your story, the rest of the story is thrown into question. (and rightfully so) This is how the Republicans can change the topic? What on Earth are you talking about?

The CBS story only has more rumor and heresay without those documents. They threw those on the air as the "hammer" to drive the nail in once and for all. The only problem is it appears they were duped.

The democrats COULD have made huge gains out of this thing. If Kerry had came out a day after the story aired and said it was a non-issue and that the dirty campaigning should stop now. . . he'd have seen an instant increase. Instead the jack-asses go on the offensive with it. They throw the documents and the story all over their campaign websites, hold press conferences with democratic senators waving the documents like flags and scream to the high heavens to tell everyone George W is a scumbag.

Oops. You've now did this with forged documents you stupid morons. Your credibility, like the CBS story is ruined if these documents are proven fake.(and right now it's on CBS to prove they are real, and they are doing a horrific job of it so far) Now it's too late for Kerry to come out and say the matter should be put to bed. The best thing for Bush? He didn't have to lift a finger through this. Before he ever had to make a public response to the issue, the documents accuracy had already been challenged. Now he gets to sit back and enjoy the show as CBS loses all credibility and the Kerry campaign prays to God that nobody associated with their campaign was stupid enough to be traced back to the documents. (because, even without Kerry's involvement, it would end this campaign in about 1/2 of a second)

If it was a Republican who put the documents out there, CBS would be giving them up in a half second. It would save their credibility and they could happily slam Rove. Instead they are in a process of denial and protecting a source that torched them at all costs. As Cam has said, you would NEVER protect a source that burned you. Not in a million years. (I'm a journalism major for those who don't know)

This continues to be the worst run campaign in history. The democrats should be up by 10-12 points right now. This election should be all but over. Instead they've butchered it to the point I think it cannot be repaired. I'll be very surprised if Bush doesn't win this thing by 6-8 points (at a minimum).

As for CBS, Rather won't be able to recover from this if the documents are proven to be forged. He had a chance if he'd admitted it early, but he's went on the attack to show how right he is. The public will forgive a high profile newscaster for a screwup, they WON'T forgive him for a coverup.

[randal7]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I..._040914-1.html

Apparently now some of the experts who examined the documents for CBS say they told them there were problems with authenticity.

[Ben E Lou]

CBS' experts say they didn't authenticate Bush memos

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 Posted: 3:44 AM EDT (0744 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three document experts who were asked by CBS News to examine memos alleging that President Bush received special treatment during his service in the Texas Air National Guard told CNN Tuesday that they did not authenticate the documents -- and one said the network "ignored" her reservations about them before a "60 Minutes" broadcast last week.

Emily Will, a document examiner in North Carolina who said she examined two of the documents for CBS News prior to the broadcast, said she "had serious questions" about their authenticity, although she did not reach a definitive conclusion about whether they were fabrications.

Will told CNN she had concerns about signatures on the documents, as well as the type of the text and the content. She told ABC News that she questioned whether the memos could have been produced by a typewriter and found "five significant differences" in the questioned handwriting.

While Will told CNN that she did not advise the network to spike the story, she said she did tell CBS News that "if you run this on Wednesday, on Thursday you are going to have 100 document examiners asking you these questions."

Also, Marcel Matley -- who appeared Friday on the CBS Evening News during anchor Dan Rather's lengthy defense of his reporting on the memos -- told CNN that he could only verify that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's signatures on the documents in question were from the same source.

The memos were purportedly written in 1972 and 1973 by Killian, Bush's squadron commander, for his private files. He died in 1984.

"When I saw the documents, I could not verify the documents were authentic or inauthentic. I could only verify that the signatures came from the same source," Matley said. "I could not authenticate the documents themselves. But at the same time, there was nothing to tell me that they were not authentic."

Linda James, another document examiner from Texas hired by CBS News, told CNN that she, too, did not authenticate the documents. She described them as being of "very poor quality," which she found surprising given "what they were about ... and who it was concerning."

"I didn't feel I could give an opinion, and I certainly would not authenticate," she told CNN.

Tuesday evening, ABC News reported that James and Will had raised questions about the authenticity of the documents with CBS News before the 60 Minutes broadcast.

In response, CBS News -- which has stood behind the authenticity of the memos -- issued a statement saying James and Will played only a "peripheral role" in assessing one of the four documents cited in the report, "and they did not render definitive judgment on that document."

"Ultimately, they played a peripheral role and deferred to another expert who examined all four of the documents used," the statement said. "More importantly, the content of the documents was backed up by our reporting and our sources who knew the thoughts and behavior of Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian at the time."

The statement did not identify the expert who examined all of the documents and rendered the definitive judgment.

But James told CNN that "I didn't defer to anybody ... I have my own opinion."

Will agreed that CBS News did not rely on her for a final assessment of the documents, but she said "they seem to have ignored" her opinion.

"If they had relied on it, they would not have done that story," Will said. She said she "in no way" deferred to another expert, although she did refer CBS News to a typewriter expert because she did not know the exact timeline of typewriter development.

The memos in question were purportedly written by Killian. In them, the author complained he was being pressured to "sugar coat" the future president's performance evaluations and that Bush failed to meet performance standards while a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, including getting a required physical exam.

The author also wrote that he believed Bush -- at the time the son of a Texas congressman -- was "talking to someone upstairs" to get permission to transfer to the Alabama National Guard to work on a Senate campaign.

But the authenticity of those documents has come under fire in media reports, with some document experts insisting they were not written on a typewriter in the 1970s but generated on a computer at a later date.

Forensic document experts who have examined the memos have told CNN that they cannot conclusively determine whether the documents are authentic -- but some features in them raise questions about whether they were actually written in the early 1970s.

Rather and CBS News have insisted that the documents came from a "solid" source, that their contents were backed up by other reporting and that the memos had been authenticated by document experts.

However, Rather conceded that CBS had only obtained photocopies of the documents, not the originals, which experts say would shed light on their authenticity. The network has also not revealed the source of the documents.

On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called on CBS News to say where it got the memos.

"I understand that people want to protect their sources, but we're dealing with the alleged forgery of government documents to influence a presidential race during war," DeLay told reporters. "This isn't politics as usual. It's dangerous and possibly criminal."

First lady Laura Bush also waded into the controversy over the documents in a radio interview Monday.

"You know, they probably are altered, and they probably are forgeries, and I think that's terrible, really," Laura Bush told Radio Iowa. "That's actually one of the risks you take when you run for public office or when you're in the public eye."

A senior Bush campaign aide said the first lady was expressing her own opinion. Officially, the White House has said only that the authenticity of the documents is unclear, although the aide noted that there are "more and more serious questions being raised."

The questions about the documents prompted Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., to take the floor of the House Tuesday to demand answer to two questions: "What did Dan Rather know, and when did he know it?"

"I understand we believe in the First Amendment," Hayworth said. "All we ask ... is that Dan Rather answer those two questions."

However, despite the challenges to the veracity of the memos, the Democratic National Committee continued to pound away on the issue, unveiling a new two-minute video challenging Bush to answer questions about his Guard service raised by CBS News and other media reports.

"George Bush is a son of privilege -- a fortunate son who has spent his entire life receiving special favors and having strings pulled for him," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "He's gone from being a fortunate son who uses special influence to being an unfortunate president who makes especially wrong choices for America."

Responding to the video, which the DNC plans to air at campaign events and on its Web site, RNC spokesman Jim Dyke issued a statement calling it "as creative and accurate as the memos they gave CBS."

CNN's Jeanne Meserve, Dana Bash, Suzanne Malveaux, Peter Ornstein, Sarah Irwin and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CNN Article

However, despite the challenges to the veracity of the memos, the Democratic National Committee continued to pound away on the issue, unveiling a new two-minute video challenging Bush to answer questions about his Guard service raised by CBS News and other media reports.

Wow. Does their research and polling tell them that this is the way to win, or is this complete ineptness?

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Just looking at CBSNEWS.com for anything on this, I ran across this story. Maybe it really is as bad as some of us are starting to think...




Top Dem Rips Kerry Campaign

NEW YORK, Sept. 14, 2004

Bush Mum On Guard Service Tony Coelho, former Gore campaign chairman, in 2000 file photo. (Photo: AP) “What I’m looking for is a Karl Rove and I don’t know where our Karl Rove is.” Tony Coelho The latest from CBS News reporters and analysts on the 2004 campaign: Bush, Kerry & N. Korea By David Paul Kuhn Campaign 2004: A 9/11 Casualty By Dick Meyer Kerry Campaign Stomachache By Dotty Lynch Foreign Polls Favor Kerry By Tom Fenton More campaign news: Washington Wrap Trail Bytes CBS News Polls Interactives: Campaign 2004 The Democrats The Republicans

(CBS) By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer

---

Longtime Democratic insider Tony Coelho lashed out at the John Kerry presidential campaign, characterizing it as a campaign in chaos. With yet another appointment of a former Clinton administration staffer to Kerry’s team on Tuesday, Coelho argues the problem is worsening.

“There is nobody in charge and you have these two teams that are generally not talking to each other,” says Coehlo, who ran Al Gore's campaign early in the 2000 presidential race. As Coelho and other detractors see it, there is a civil war within the Kerry campaign.

Sen. Ted Kennedy’s former staff members, Mary Beth Cahill, the Kerry campaign manager, and veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum are at odds with recent additions who served under President Clinton.

“Here are two groups that have never gotten along and have fought, and it is a lot over money,” says Coehlo. "Because in the Democratic Party the consultants get paid for the creation and the placement of [advertising]. Republicans only pay you for the creation.”

Coelho, a former congressman who served as House majority whip for the Democrats from 1987 to 1989, does not question any of the Kerry staff's sincerity in wanting to unseat President Bush. But his comments highlight a longstanding battle within the Democratic Party for national campaign control.

“In 1988, Dukakis: Shrum is involved. In 1992, Clinton: nothing to do with Shrum. They don’t want Shrum in any way,” Coelho says. “In 1996, they do not want Shrum in any way. In 2000, Gore doesn’t want Clinton people. We go forward, 2004, all of a sudden it’s the Shrum/Kennedy people.”

And Coelho adds that the Kerry campaign staffers “are in serious trouble now, so they want to bring in the Clinton people.”

The Democratic scuttlebutt has long been filled with concern over Shrum’s losing streak. He remains 0 for 7 in presidential elections, from George McGovern to Michael Dukakis to Al Gore. When Coelho resigned as chairman of the Gore campaign, Shrum, in large part, took the reins.

The Kerry campaign insists this is not the case; it says Mary Beth Cahill is still in charge. But last week, the appointment of strategist John Sasso as a senior adviser began to belie such claims.

Calls and e-mails to Cahill and the Kerry campaign were not immediately returned.

“What I’m looking for is a Karl Rove and I don’t know where our Karl Rove is.” Coelho says. “I think Sasso is a Karl Rove. I’m very high on Sasso because I don’t think he plays Machiavellian games. I think he very sincerely wants to win. I think he is very big on Kerry. And I think he’s tough enough to say, ‘Goddammit, come together.’”

Sources inside the Kerry campaign say the Democratic nominee was fuming that his advisers told him to ignore charges by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry lied about his war record and betrayed fellow veterans by testifying to Congress about alleged atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers.

The Kerry campaign never countered the Swift Boat charges, the allegations persisted and Kerry’s bad August ensued.

Kerry led most polls leading into August. By the second week of September, President Bush had come back and now has a four-to-seven point lead over Kerry, depending on the poll.

“Our problem here is a national message,” Coelho says. “What is it that we [Democrats] are? If you go to Kerry, that’s a disaster because the candidate should not be involved in solving disputes or the creation of his message.

“You need a [campaign] boss, somebody who says ‘Shut up, we are going to work this out.’ Not someone who can go around to Kerry, and that’s Shrummy’s forte,” Coelho continues, speaking of Shrum. The Kerry campaign has over the past week refuted speculation that either Shrum or Sasso are running the campaign.

But in a sign of how seriously the Kerry campaign is taking its dive in the polls, a trio of ex-Clinton staffers has come aboard recently, including former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry who signed up on Tuesday. He joins Joe Lockhart, another onetime Clinton press secretary, and Joel Johnson, the former president’s legislative strategist.

The call for the Clintonistas, in McCurry’s view, illustrates that Democrats are circling the wagons.

“Democrats are sort of coming out of places where normally they might sit on the sidelines,” McCurry says, “because there is a strong sense that we really need to get in there and try to help, because it is an important election.”

McCurry emphasizes that he is not in charge. “I’m not pretending that I’m taking any major strategic role,” he says. “I think they’ve got too many gurus in that campaign. I’m going to be a road guy and help out and make sure Kerry’s as good as he can be.”

McCurry defends the Kerry camp and says he doesn’t think they got off message in August. “I think Bush got on message,” he says.

“I think [Mr. Bush] had a much better August than he had had prior,” McCurry says. “So I think part of this is a reaction to the fact that [the Bush campaign] sharpened up their operation and had a good convention on their side. We just have got to do our bit, on our side.”

McCurry’s addition followed a call this past weekend from campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill.

“I said I would think about it,” McCurry says. “And then when I talked to Lockhart and said, ‘What’s your assessment of what you really need?’ it was pretty clear that he could use the help. And he’s a guy that has been there for me so I wanted to help him.”

McCurry was quick to speak of himself as a deputy, not the sheriff. Though Coelho questions Cahill’s ability to run the campaign, he does not question her managerial ability.

“She’s basically a C.O.O, and a very good one. I think she’s a very effective administrator,” Coelho continues. “What McCurry represents is further chaos because McCurry’s not in charge. If they were telling me that McCurry’s in charge, then I’d feel better. I’m not sure he’s the right guy, but I’d feel better.”

Of Shrum’s role as adviser, Coelho says “I’m not anti-Shrummy here. What I’m saying is that you need to have someone in charge and I think Sasso’s capable of it.”

“If [Sasso] is in charge then Goddammit, say it and stop having the speculation of who's in charge because that’s worse,” Coelho says. “It also starts to impact in regard to the whole image of leadership. If someone can’t control a message in a presidential campaign, how are you going to be a good president?”


By David Paul Kuhn
©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[GrantDawg]

Well, you have to be carefull, Ben. That is from CBS news so they may be making it up and forging documents to prove it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Wow. Does their research and polling tell them that this is the way to win, or is this complete ineptness?

Complete ineptness. Of course then you have the other alternative. ****puts on his ten-foil hat**** All this could be the Clinton friends in the campaign sabotaging from the inside to make sure Kerry does not win this year, so Hillary has a better shot in 2008. Or even juicier, it is some how Carl Roves fault. I don't know how, but everytime something bad happens in a campaign somehow the Dems all blame Carl Rove. Maybe he is using mind-control or something.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Wow. Does their research and polling tell them that this is the way to win, or is this complete ineptness?

Complete and total ineptness. If Rather and CBS don't confirm the source and where they found these documents quickly, anyone associated with the story in any way is going to go down in flames. A blind man can see this from three thousand miles away.

You cannot use ANYTHING reported in this story for your campaign until those documents are verified as legit. It's now just a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Because of the way the Kerry campaign has handled this (combined with their other blunders), if these documents are forged, he may as well not bother wasting anymore money on the campaign trail. It's over.

As it is, he's going to need a miracle to pull this off. George W. has to be one of the luckiest men alive. Two of the top five worst run campaigns in history are what he's had to go up against. Amazing.

[GrantDawg]

washingtonpost.com


Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect
CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service



By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01

CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "

Rather spoke after interviewing the secretary to Bush's former squadron commander, who told him that the memos attributed to her late boss are fake -- but that they reflect the commander's belief that Bush was receiving preferential treatment to escape some of his Guard commitments.

The former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, is the latest person to raise questions about the "60 Minutes" story, which Rather and top CBS officials still defend while vowing to investigate mounting questions about whether the 30-year-old documents used in the story were part of a hoax. Their shift in tone yesterday came as GOP critics as well as some media commentators demanded that the story be retracted and suggested that Rather should step down.

"This is not about me," Rather said before anchoring last night's newscast. "I recognize that those who didn't want the information out and tried to discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept that."

For Rather, 72, it is an all-too-familiar role. In his CBS career, he has survived an impertinent exchange with President Richard M. Nixon during Watergate, a clandestine trek through the mountains of Afghanistan, an on-air confrontation with George H.W. Bush over Iran-contra and a much-debated sitdown with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

Now, on the final leg of a career launched by a Texas hurricane, Rather is trying to weather his biggest storm. And some of his closest friends and associates are concerned.

"I think this is very, very serious," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent. "When Dan tells me these documents are not forgeries, I believe him. But somehow we've got to find a way to show people these documents are not forgeries." Some friends of Rather, whose contract runs until the end of 2006, are discussing whether he might be forced to make an early exit from CBS.

In her interview with Rather yesterday, Knox repeated her contention that the documents used by "60 Minutes" were bogus. Knox, 86, worked for Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian while he supervised Bush's unit in the early 1970s.

"I know that I didn't type them," Knox said of the Killian memos. "However, the information in there is correct," she said, adding that Killian and the other officers would "snicker about what [Bush] was getting away with."

Rather said he was "relieved and pleased" by Knox's comments that the disputed memos reflected Killian's view of the favorable treatment that Bush received in the military unit. But he said, "I take very seriously her belief that the documents are not authentic." If Knox is right, Rather said, the public "won't hear about it from a spokesman. They'll learn it from me."

But he also delivered a message to "our journalistic competitors," including The Washington Post and rival networks: "Instead of asking President Bush and his staff questions about what is true and not true about the president's military service, they ask me questions: 'How do you know this and that about the documents?' "

CBS News President Andrew Heyward defended the work that went into the Guard story. "I feel that we did a tremendous amount of reporting before the story went on the air or we wouldn't have put it on the air," Heyward said last night. "But we want to get to the bottom of these unresolved issues," including questions about the memos' typography, signatures and format. "There's such a ferocious debate about these documents."

Heyward said the account by Knox is "significant, which is why we're putting it on our prime-time program," "60 Minutes."

As a former Houston reporter, White House correspondent and "60 Minutes" regular, Rather has always taken pride in unchaining himself from the anchor desk to cover wars, political campaigns and various other crises. Determined not to be just a multimillion-dollar news reader like some younger-generation stars, he continued to anchor "48 Hours" before finally giving it up and to contribute pieces to "60 Minutes," even at the cost of being stretched thin. So it was not unusual for Rather to be crashing an investigative piece, as he did last week.

The most controversial of the three broadcast network anchors who took the reins in the early 1980s -- the others are ABC's Peter Jennings, 66, and NBC's Tom Brokaw, 64, who is retiring after the election -- Rather has long drawn the most headlines and the sharpest criticism from conservatives who view him as biased.

"Dan is a lightning rod, compared to Brokaw and Jennings, because of his personality," said Lawrence Grossman, a former president of PBS and NBC News. "He's had some very strange incidents. His colorful use of language makes him a little quirky in many people's eyes. So he's a little vulnerable."

But ABC News executive Tom Bettag, who once produced Rather's evening news, said his friend has been "quite extraordinary" in shouldering the burden. "He is the sort of person who could easily say 'this is a team effort,' but he's one of those anchors who puts it all on his shoulders and doesn't pass it down the line to anyone else," Bettag said.

Bernard Goldberg, a longtime CBS correspondent who has turned sharply critical of his former employer, said he believes that Rather was duped and will survive. But, he said, "CBS News is acting the way the Nixon administration did during Watergate. I'm really sad to say that Dan Rather is acting like Richard Nixon. It's the coverup, it's the stonewalling."

Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, said that "if it turns out CBS got this wrong, it's very damaging." He added that Rather "has a 'hot' personality that provokes strong reactions."

That may be an understatement. Rather has a penchant for down-home Texas truisms, the sort of globe-trotting that earned him the nickname "Gunga Dan" for his Afghan foray, and plain old strange behavior -- such as signing off his broadcasts for a time with the word "courage."

In 1986, he was mugged on Park Avenue with one of his attackers shouting, "Kenneth, what is the frequency?" In 1987, the network went to black because Rather had angrily walked off the set in the belief that a U.S. Open tennis match would bump his broadcast. In 1988, he got into an emotional shouting match with then-Vice President Bush, who accused Rather of being unfair. In 2001, he apologized for speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in Texas in which his daughter was involved.

His career has seemed revitalized in the past year and a half. He landed an interview with then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq and the first sitdown with Bill Clinton about his autobiography. And with producer Mary Mapes, who also spearheaded the National Guard story, Rather broke the news of Iraqi prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib -- after agreeing to a two-week delay at the Bush administration's request.

Once the most watched of the three anchors' broadcasts, Rather's show has been ranked third for several years. Now he is even the target of a new Web site, Rathergate.com.

Some media analysts are already comparing the Guard controversy to the 1993 fiasco in which NBC's "Dateline" apologized for staging the fiery crash of a truck, and the 1998 debacle in which CNN apologized for the "Tailwind" story that accused U.S. troops of using nerve gas during the Vietnam War.

"Dan knows that trying to do a story about a Republican president is immediately going to stir up a hornet's nest from the conservatives who have jumped on him since the Nixon days," Bettag said. "He could have been excused for saying 'I don't need this kind of grief.' But he didn't."

As Rather signed off to rush back into the studio last night, he sounded a defiant note.

"I try to look people in the eye and tell them the truth," Rather said. "I don't back up. I don't back down. I don't cave when the pressure gets too great from these partisan political ideological forces."





© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by TroyF

You would think people could figure it out by now. When you LIE about one part of your story, the rest of the story is thrown into question. (and rightfully so)

I have no horse in this race, but I found it interesting that a fervent advocate of the war in Iraq would utter such a sentence.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I have no horse in this race

That's "I don't have a dog in this fight", you $@*(&% elitist.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

That's "I don't have a dog in this fight", you $@*(&% elitist.

LOL

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

LOL

I try.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I have no horse in this race, but I found it interesting that a fervent advocate of the war in Iraq would utter such a sentence.

Well I'm guessing that is because not everyone believes the Administration lied about Iraq.

[GrantDawg]

CBS CONCERN OVER VIEWERSHIP PLUNGE; RATHER RATINGS FADE IN MAJOR MARKETS

CBS executives on both coasts have become concerned in recent days that Dan Rather's EVENING NEWS broadcast has plunged in the ratings since the anchor presented questionable documents about Bush's National Guard service.

NIELSEN numbers released this week show Rather fading and trailing his rivals in every Top 10 city, other than San Francisco, with audience margins in some cities running more than 6 to 1 against CBS!

Executives fear many voters inclined to vote for Bush are now switching off Rather.

"The audience appears to [be] polarized," a top CBS source said from LOS ANGELES on Thursday. "Rightly or wrongly, we're being perceived as 'anti-Bush,' which I do not think is fair to Dan, who is a fine journalist... of course we do not like to see the ratings coming back the way they are this week."

In Philadelphia, the nation's #4 market, Rather pulled a 2.6 rating/5 share on Tuesday night against ABC's 13.3 rating/23 share and NBC's 4.0/7.

In Chicago, Rather hit a 2.3/5 to ABC's 9.2/20.

CBS trailed ABC by more than 2 to 1 in Los Angeles.

And in the nation's top market, New York, Rather finished not only behind NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT -- but also pulled less audience than reruns of the SIMPSONS, WILL & GRACE and KING OF QUEENS.

Rather finished dead last in New York during the 6:30 pm timeslot among all broadcast channels tracked by NIELSEN on Tuesday.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well I'm guessing that is because not everyone believes the Administration lied about Iraq.

So it depends on your definition of "lied"?

[GrantDawg]

Sorry, that as Drudge. The ratings information is very interesting. Those numbers may end up being the death-nell of Rather unless this thing can blow over.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I have no horse in this race, but I found it interesting that a fervent advocate of the war in Iraq would utter such a sentence.

Well, I suppose it might help to know the background, wouldn't it? One of my criticisms of the Bush administration is how they told us about the war. I think they did use some falsehoods and I think that was pretty sad.

On the other hand, I felt the war needed to be fought. I can understand the people who are against the war. My only issues are them acting as though the supposed Al Queda link was the ONLY reason we went to war and acting as thought the WMD thing had so many questions before the war began.

I felt we should have finished the job in 1990. I felt we should have taken care of things long before 2002-2003, so I would have supported this war under nearly any circumstance.

The people who wouldn't have? They feel as though they've been lied to and it's a large reason for Bush not having a high approval rating. I can understand that.

You, in turn, have to understand that if Rather used forged documents, those sitting on the fence on Bush's military record are going to not only discount the story, but discount the stories source as well.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I have no horse in this race, but I found it interesting that a fervent advocate of the war in Iraq would utter such a sentence.

Lies about going to war is much different though - this is a flat out partisan attack against the Commander in Chief by the left leaning media. The way I see it, lies that helped garner support for the Iraq war were worth it because it was a just war to protect the Iraqi people from tyranny, while lies that make President Bush look bad are unjust as they might cause him to lose a Presidential election (not to mention downright disrespectful). The attack on Iraq was a good thing, so whatever the administration had to do to get the public behind it will be worth it once it becomes a democratic nation sometime over the next generation. Regardless of the facts, I seriously doubt President Bush did any of the things they say he did back in the 1970's, but the main thing is that the media needs to show more respect for the office of the President, warts and all.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by TroyF

On the other hand, I felt the war needed to be fought. I can understand the people who are against the war. My only issues are them acting as though the supposed Al Queda link was the ONLY reason we went to war and acting as thought the WMD thing had so many questions before the war began. . . .

You, in turn, have to understand that if Rather used forged documents, those sitting on the fence on Bush's military record are going to not only discount the story, but discount the stories source as well.

I have no doubt that lying in part hurts the overall cause - my point was that the post hoc rationalization of human rights in the Iraq war is analogous. Lying about WMD issues, Al Qaeda issues, and being overly optimistic about the celebrations in Iraq that would ensue makes the "truth" about human rights get lost. Similarly, there was a lot of "meat" to the CBS story without the documents that has been lost. I, for one, am extremely skeptical of almost everything the Bush administration says in regards to foreign policy because their credibility has been shot to hell. And my faith in mainstream media has declined even further as believe they are almost entirely puppets for whoever is in power at the current time.

As a side note, there is substantial evidence coming out (albeit I've seen almost none of it in the American press) that the human rights situation was horribly exaggerated as well. Specifically, the number of mass graves may have been overestimated by a couple orders of magnitude (and many of them may have been due to famine). I have no doubt the human rights situation in Iraq wasn't good, but I still believe (as I argued before the war), that Iraq wasn't even in the top 10 in terms of human rights abuse in the world.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

Lies about going to war is much different though - this is a flat out partisan attack against the Commander in Chief by the left leaning media. The way I see it, lies that helped garner support for the Iraq war were worth it because it was a just war to protect the Iraqi people from tyranny, while lies that make President Bush look bad are unjust as they might cause him to lose a Presidential election (not to mention downright disrespectful). The attack on Iraq was a good thing, so whatever the administration had to do to get the public behind it will be worth it once it becomes a democratic nation sometime over the next generation. Regardless of the facts, I seriously doubt President Bush did any of the things they say he did back in the 1970's, but the main thing is that the media needs to show more respect for the office of the President, warts and all.

If you believe the government should lie to the people for their own good, then there is no debate can be had here. I believe nothing is more dangerous to democracy and civil society than a government who believes it knows better than the people what it should do (and is therefore justified lying to achieve that end). Democracy only works when the people openly criticize the leaders.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I have no horse in this race, but I found it interesting that a fervent advocate of the war in Iraq would utter such a sentence.

A President does not rely on his credibility to do an effective job. That may be a key part of getting re-elected, but people care more about the results than how we got there. That's aside from any debates about whether or not the Administration lied about Iraq (people sure seem to have a short memory about how Clinton and the Democrats have come out saying they thought Saddam had WMDs as well).

A journalist is supposed to be all about reporting the truth. If they report a lie, or use false evidence to support a story, what do they have left?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well I'm guessing that is because not everyone believes the Administration lied about Iraq.

Believing that the administration did not lie about Iraq requires ignoring a large body of overwhelming evidence. You can certainly argue (as others have) that the war was still justified or that the lies were not that big, but to deny the lies just seems to ignore a lot of evidence.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

A President does not rely on his credibility to do an effective job. That may be a key part of getting re-elected, but people care more about the results than how we got there. That's aside from any debates about whether or not the Administration lied about Iraq (people sure seem to have a short memory about how Clinton and the Democrats have come out saying they thought Saddam had WMDs as well).

A journalist is supposed to be all about reporting the truth. If they report a lie, or use false evidence to support a story, what do they have left?

Again - I'm not defending CBS (if anything, I'm attacking them) - I was just pointing out what I saw as an ironic part of TroyF's argument.

If you are right that people only care about results and not process, then we are in a much sadder state than I ever imagined.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by John Galt

If you are right that people only care about results and not process, then we are in a much sadder state than I ever imagined.

I thought that "liar" was part of the definition of "politician". We have effective politicians that lie all the time. I agree with you, I hate it when it happens, but it happens all the time. Sometimes they get in a bit of trouble for it (Nixon), sometimes they don't (Clinton).

But if you're trying to claim that a politician can't be effective without always telling the truth, I respectfully disagree. I would assert that a journalist can't lie and be effective (leaving aside yellow journalism and tabloids, which I don't think are really journalists and which I don't think Rather purports to be either). Therefore, there was nothing contradictory in the original statement.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I thought that "liar" was part of the definition of "politician". We have effective politicians that lie all the time. I agree with you, I hate it when it happens, but it happens all the time. Sometimes they get in a bit of trouble for it (Nixon), sometimes they don't (Clinton).

But if you're trying to claim that a politician can't be effective without always telling the truth, I respectfully disagree. I would assert that a journalist can't lie and be effective (leaving aside yellow journalism and tabloids, which I don't think are really journalists and which I don't think Rather purports to be either). Therefore, there was nothing contradictory in the original statement.

I think we need to differentiate lying by politicians into different categories (this isn't an exhaustive list, just the things that came to mind): 1) Lies to protect state secrets - a very narrow category that almost eveyone supports, 2) Lies on trivial issues due to poor information - and by trivial issues, I mean those things that aren't on central policies - these are probably inevitable, 3) Lies about personal stuff - this is a controversial area and I'm less inclined than most to forgive here, 4) Lies that are failed promises - this is another gray area - we never know if a politician never intended to carry out a promise or if something else stopped it, and 5) A lie to persaude regarding a central policy in order to gain support - propoganda of lies.

The last category is the most dangerous in my mind - when politicians use propoganda built on lies, they enter very scary territory. Communist and fascist regimes were most famous for this type of social control (Hitler got away with arguing that the invasion of Poland was a war of liberation to stop human rights abuses there). When American politicians engage in such lies, they may be "effective" in that they get their policies implemented, but they do a great disservice to democracy in the process.

As for journalists, I agree that some notions of "truth" are important, but I believe mainstream media today has abandoned most notions of "truth" even moreso than politicians. I saw a clip from "Outfoxed" last night and it made an interesting point. Foxnews has done so well by marketing "America" and "the Flag" that every other news agency is running to catch up. When getting viewers means following the administration party line, we are in a very ugly place.

[DeftRevisited]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

Lies about going to war is much different though - this is a flat out partisan attack against the Commander in Chief by the left leaning media. The way I see it, lies that helped garner support for the Iraq war were worth it because it was a just war to protect the Iraqi people from tyranny, while lies that make President Bush look bad are unjust as they might cause him to lose a Presidential election (not to mention downright disrespectful). The attack on Iraq was a good thing, so whatever the administration had to do to get the public behind it will be worth it once it becomes a democratic nation sometime over the next generation. Regardless of the facts, I seriously doubt President Bush did any of the things they say he did back in the 1970's, but the main thing is that the media needs to show more respect for the office of the President, warts and all.

Sarcasm Sirens- ON
I have to agree lies based on trivial partisanship that discredit a man's record from 30 years ago are much more heinous than lies that justify committing billions of dollars and killing thousands of lives. I think deception and false reasons are always good policy when trying to start unprovoked wars. It worked in the Spanish-American War, why not now?
Sarcasm Sirens- OFF

With regards to journalism, CBS and Rather may be moving to far left and bridging the line of attempting to be unbiased. But I think its a reaction to entertainers like, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the new Liberal radio that are completely biased but try and pass themselves off as the "news".

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Believing that the administration did not lie about Iraq requires ignoring a large body of overwhelming evidence. You can certainly argue (as others have) that the war was still justified or that the lies were not that big, but to deny the lies just seems to ignore a lot of evidence.

In my mind, in order to lie, you have to know what you are saying is incorrect. I don't believe the administration(The President, Colin Powell, ...etc) lied about things. I believe they honestly believed that the WMD were there, and that it was at least a possibility that they might pass those along to a terrorist organization.

You say overwhelming evidence, I don't think I have been that out of the loop. The most damning evidence of a lie has been the State of the Union bit about Iraq obtaining uranium from Nigeria(I think?). I have heard a lot of Bush's opposition yelling "Lies, Lies", but I don't consider that evidence.

[Solecismic]

There's a huge number of us who aren't invested in the Republican/Democrat war. And just want an unbiased presentation of the news.

Right now, we don't know where to turn. Perhaps CBS' sudden drop in viewership has more to do with the perception of bias than partisan viewers.

Because if Republicans suddenly realized Rather and CBS were shills of the Democratic party, wouldn't Democrats, then, suddenly realize Rather and CBS were on their side, and make up for the loss in viewership?

I wish there were a place I could turn for news. For stuff like Hurricane Ivan, which I believe was a non-partisan hurricane, this isn't a problem. But for stories about the economy, the war and the election, it's much tougher to decide. I try and offset every hour of CNN viewing with an hour of FOX News. But I'd much rather (no pun intended) just have one place to go where there is no hidden agenda.

I believe CBS's massive viewership drop has much more to do with Rather's politics and the bizarre manner in which CBS has defended the story than the politics of those who used to watch CBS news.

[TroyF]

John,

I don't think the human rights stories were exaggerated. Nor do I believe the administration knowingly lied about WMD's. They thought they were there. Just like John Kerry thought they were there. And Bill Clinton. And Newt Gingrich.

Again, I fail to see why you find irony. The only way you could find irony in my statement is if I admitted that Bush had never lied or that I held some psychotic right wing belief that Hussein was in bed with Al Queda. I don't on either.

I understand exactly why you feel betrayed by Bush on all foreign intelligence matters. It's your right and Bush certainly did things to make you feel that way. I admit, I had a bias going in. I felt it was a just war, so I can forgive the mistakes more easily.

This? This is a clear cut attempt at influencing a political election. CBS has ran this story multiple times already. It never stuck. So now they run it with "documentation" to back their case. Only the documentation is forged and now they are screwed.

Now, if someone is slightly tilted to the right they are going to be offended by the story. The left will talk about how it's true and that the documents were some Karl Rove conspiracy. (Air America is a downright comedic radio station at times) The people in the middle? They are going to be the ones most pissed about this. They are the ones who are going to question anything anyone tells them after this.

As far as the news media catering to the current holder of power, how exactly do you explain this or Kenneth Lay? The current holder of power is attacked from the second he gets in office until the second he gets out. (and possibly longer if he's especially hated)

The media wants to do ONE THING: MAKE MONEY. If they feel they can do that by talking up the current president, they'll do it. If they feel they can do it by knocking him down, they'll do that instead. They don't give a damn about who is in charge, all they care about is how they can make money off of it. In this case they have their hands in the cookie jar. And while we have sadly grown accustomed to our politicians being lying bastards, most everyday Americans have an expectation that a major newscast will be credible. (even if it is biased at times) When they screw up one thing, especially this horrificly, they are doomed. The fallout from this story has yet to be fully realized. It'll take years for the CBS news organization to recover from this gaffe.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

In my mind, in order to lie, you have to know what you are saying is incorrect. I don't believe the administration(The President, Colin Powell, ...etc) lied about things. I believe they honestly believed that the WMD were there, and that it was at least a possibility that they might pass those along to a terrorist organization.

You say overwhelming evidence, I don't think I have been that out of the loop. The most damning evidence of a lie has been the State of the Union bit about Iraq obtaining uranium from Nigeria(I think?). I have heard a lot of Bush's opposition yelling "Lies, Lies", but I don't consider that evidence.

The uranium was from Niger, but I think there have many other lies that are on the record:

The aluminum tubes
The unmanned vehicles that could disseminate WMD material
Statements by Bush that at the time of the invasion, Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in (when in fact, the US had recalled them)
Cheney's repeated denials that he ever said we would be welcomed as liberators (even with video saying otherwise)
The administration citing Kurdish controlled al-qaeda camps as linked to Saddam

Those are just some key facts from my memory (there may be more). I also think that quotes by Bush and his administration put a heavy burden on them in terms of deniability:

"Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."-- President Bush, News conference, 3/6/03

"We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the - our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."-- President George W. Bush, 7/17/03

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."-- Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/02

"We know where they [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."-- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, 3/30/03

When an administration repeatedly uses "no doubt" type language, I think a lie occurs when they play fast and loose with the facts. Even without the "no doubt" issue, there are several issues above that the Bush administration lied about and knew it lied about.

If you still think they didn't know, then I fear you have adopted the Costanza definition of lying: "It's only a lie if you believe its a lie."

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

...

If you still think they didn't know, then I fear you have adopted the Costanza definition of lying: "It's only a lie if you believe its a lie."

I think the vast majority of the things you are talking about are incidents where they are stating what they believe are facts based on the intelligence. I can pull out Clinton, Daschle, and Kerry quotes stating that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and needed to be removed from power. Were they lying too?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by TroyF

John,

I don't think the human rights stories were exaggerated. Nor do I believe the administration knowingly lied about WMD's. They thought they were there. Just like John Kerry thought they were there. And Bill Clinton. And Newt Gingrich.

I'm not denying a great many politicians believed they were there - my problem is that the intelligence community didn't believe we could know they were there (certainly not without "doubt" as my quotes above illustrate. I argued before the war that we couldn't possibly know, but the lack of doubt exhibited by the Bush administration is where I find the problem. Either way, there were plenty of other (easier to prove) lies above. As for the human rights stories, do a little leg work and you may find the facts are far from clear. Relying on dissidents who are lobbying for invasion rarely yields good information, but that is all the Clinton and Bush administrations relied on.

Originally Posted by TroyF

Again, I fail to see why you find irony. The only way you could find irony in my statement is if I admitted that Bush had never lied or that I held some psychotic right wing belief that Hussein was in bed with Al Queda. I don't on either.

I just saw the statement as unusual for a war supporter because the lies have really discredited much of what the Bush administration has said since. If you are willing to admit those lies, it does loose a little bit or irony. Oh well.

Originally Posted by TroyF

I understand exactly why you feel betrayed by Bush on all foreign intelligence matters. It's your right and Bush certainly did things to make you feel that way. I admit, I had a bias going in. I felt it was a just war, so I can forgive the mistakes more easily.

This? This is a clear cut attempt at influencing a political election. CBS has ran this story multiple times already. It never stuck. So now they run it with "documentation" to back their case. Only the documentation is forged and now they are screwed.

Now, if someone is slightly tilted to the right they are going to be offended by the story. The left will talk about how it's true and that the documents were some Karl Rove conspiracy. (Air America is a downright comedic radio station at times) The people in the middle? They are going to be the ones most pissed about this. They are the ones who are going to question anything anyone tells them after this.

As far as the news media catering to the current holder of power, how exactly do you explain this or Kenneth Lay? The current holder of power is attacked from the second he gets in office until the second he gets out. (and possibly longer if he's especially hated)

The media wants to do ONE THING: MAKE MONEY. If they feel they can do that by talking up the current president, they'll do it. If they feel they can do it by knocking him down, they'll do that instead. They don't give a damn about who is in charge, all they care about is how they can make money off of it. In this case they have their hands in the cookie jar. And while we have sadly grown accustomed to our politicians being lying bastards, most everyday Americans have an expectation that a major newscast will be credible. (even if it is biased at times) When they screw up one thing, especially this horrificly, they are doomed. The fallout from this story has yet to be fully realized. It'll take years for the CBS news organization to recover from this gaffe.

As I've made clear, I'm no fan of CBS in this action and really believe the media in general has lost any meaningful role in our democracy.

Now, you make the argument that the leader is attacked from day 1 until they leave - I think those attacks are almost always personal or tangential. Say what you want about Michael Moore, but many issues he covered in F 9/11 were never addressed by the mainstream media (the suppression of the black vote in Florida and subsequent scene on Capitol Hill with the Black Caucus is the most prominent example). When it comes to war and policy, the media just runs the reports prepared by the White House (and its intellectual wings in the private sector). Real investigative journalism is a lost art. Moreover, corporate interests create a race to get the story first, even if all the details are unknown. Foxnews has created the paradigm for modern media (even though mainstream media had lost its way before) - rallying around the flag always makes money.

Why did the National Guard story become so big? Why did Swift Boat stories dominate the headlines? The media is covering non-issues. Why didn't we receive more coverage about the tactics of having free speech zones at both conventions? The media doesn't care because they get into the conventions. I'm appalled at the state of journalism in America and I believe this is a sad byproduct of the inevitable capitalist consolidation of media. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm quite sure the Bush administration (and probably subsequent administrations) will continue to exploit this poor state of affairs and use the media as a propoganda machine.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

... Say what you want about Michael Moore, but many issues he covered in F 9/11 were never addressed by the mainstream media (the suppression of the black vote in Florida and subsequent scene on Capitol Hill with the Black Caucus is the most prominent example)...

Perhaps those investigative reporters looked into the suppression of the black vote in Florida, and determined it was Bullshit.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think the vast majority of the things you are talking about are incidents where they are stating what they believe are facts based on the intelligence. I can pull out Clinton, Daschle, and Kerry quotes stating that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and needed to be removed from power. Were they lying too?

Actually my examples have less to do with intelligence (the Bush administration asserted that aluminum tubes could be used for nuclear weapons even though NO intelligence expert agreed with them and there was direct evidence otherwise, the unmanned vehicles were incapable of causing the damage asserted, Cheney has repeatedly denied making statements that he made, the use of the Kurdish al-qaeda camp could not be based on confusion - it was clearly in Kurdish territory, and Bush's continued statements that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in at the time of the invasion is just wrong). These facts don't rely on hindsight. When you also add all the other things we know in hindsight, there is a definite pattern. And the fact that the administration kept saying "NO DOUBT" puts a very high burden on them - they did not just say "the best evidence shows."

As for other politicians, they only spoke to WMD's - something which is a general issue - I'm talking about very specific lies. Clinton and Kerry have lied about various things (including Kerry's very odd confusion about whether he owns an SUV), but that is side issue to this discussion.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Perhaps those investigative reporters looked into the suppression of the black vote in Florida, and determined it was Bullshit.

First off, I'm more talking about the scene on Capitol Hill when the Black Caucus wanted an investigation as to vote suppression and couldn't get a single Senator to authorize one. I didn't see any media coverage of a major breakdown in democracy.

As for vote suppression itself, there is clear evidence that many blacks were illegally disenfranchised because their names were mistakenly included on the list of felons who couldn't vote. Some had had convictions overturned while others just had the same names as convicts. The numbers were significant and unfortunately, no one did much to report it in the mainstream media.

Here is a story recounting the study done by The Nation (a liberal, non-mainstream media source) featured on Commondreams (a very liberal news collector):

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0412-02.htm

[Solecismic]

Has anyone gone to the trouble to find out if a similar number of white people were also denied access to the polls for the same reason?

I hate calling this a racial issue without evidence.

As for suppression of votes, obviously, each party wants lower turnout of groups less sympathetic to its cause. The Republicans would be happy if less black people voted and the Democrats would be happy if less military people voted. This is why Gore tried to suppress the military vote in 2000.

[DeftRevisited]

Sadly, the issue brought forth, that Bush is a silver spooned fortunate son who got an easy gig in the Guard is getting overlooked.

"Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, 86, of Houston has said she believed the memos were fake but their content accurately reflected Killian's opinions. " AP Wire

In my opinion, if the ends justifies the means is a reasonable means of legitimizing lying (which it isn't), its much better used to illustrate a person's character than to send thousand off to die.

[Huckleberry]

This whole ordeal makes me sad. I mean, seriously. What has happened to the art of forgery? The forger (presumably Burkett) couldn't even get their hands on a 1970s typewriter? They faxed it and gave away the source? CBS forgot to copy and remove the header immediately?

Brings a tear to my eye. I'm gonna go forge something.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Has anyone gone to the trouble to find out if a similar number of white people were also denied access to the polls for the same reason?

I hate calling this a racial issue without evidence.

As for suppression of votes, obviously, each party wants lower turnout of groups less sympathetic to its cause. The Republicans would be happy if less black people voted and the Democrats would be happy if less military people voted. This is why Gore tried to suppress the military vote in 2000.

I think the study found blacks were overwhelmingly targetted and were over a majority of those denied the right to vote. There was also an ugly incident (that is hopefully corrected) in anticipation of the 2004 election (this is from the People for the American Way website, but there are many sources out there):

"This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation of a “potential felon” purge list to remove voters from the rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous 2000 purge, which removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African-Americans, from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after news media investigations revealed that the 2004 list also included thousands of people who were eligible to vote, and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually ignoring Hispanic voters."

Apparently, the new list including almost no hispanic voters (who tend to vote republican in Florida) and the explanation I heard (based on census categories) didn't make sense. Either way, I hope it is fixed now.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As for suppression of votes, obviously, each party wants lower turnout of groups less sympathetic to its cause. The Republicans would be happy if less black people voted and the Democrats would be happy if less military people voted. This is why Gore tried to suppress the military vote in 2000.

There were many military ballots that came over past the deadline and without the proper markings prescribed by law to make them valid. Why should they have been counted? It is interesting to note that Gore gave and allowed the military ballots to be coutned eventhough they were NOT legal, but Bush was not willing to do the same for other voters in the state of Florida.

[John Galt]

Here is the link from The Nation directly:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...430&s=lantigua

[CamEdwards]

John,

You might also read Peter Kirsanow's report on disenfranchisement among black voters. Although he's a conservative, he's also on the Commision on Civil Rights, is black, and says there's no evidence that it took place.

BTW, I believe Jim's absolutely right about CBS's viewership. It's not that Republicans are turning off CBS, it's people who realize their reporting is crap on this story.

[Ben E Lou]

John, I think what Jim is trying to say is that they're making it a "racial" issue when it is a "trying to win" issue. I don't think many Repubs are sitting around thinking, "we need to get rid of the nigger vote", and I don't think many Dems are thinking, "we need to get rid of the baby-killer vote." Both sides would love to get more people to the polls who'll vote for them, and less people to the polls who'll vote for the other guy. As I've said in various ways, this sort of thing is inherent in our system.

[Solecismic]

That's a very biased story, John. I hope you see that.

The fact that a disproportionate number of Florida's felons are black is not evidence of discrimination on its own.

I guess one question I'd ask is if you'd still be in favor of overturning the laws restricting felons from voting if surveys said they overwhelmingly favored Bush.