Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

TANG revisited...CBS "memogate" ain't over yet.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 05:59 AM
Original message
TANG revisited...CBS "memogate" ain't over yet.
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 06:23 AM by LynnTheDem
From Dkos:

Columbia Journalism Review has a follow-up story on the case of the Killian memos -- the memos given to CBS as part of their overall story on Bush not meeting his minimum commitments in the Texas Air National Guard. No new information, really, but a decent summary of how the story unfolded and where it currently sits.

Bloggers have claimed the attack on CBS News as their Boston Tea Party, a triumph of the democratic rabble over the lazy elites of the MSM (that's mainstream media to you). But on close examination the scene looks less like a victory for democracy than a case of mob rule. On September 8, just weeks before the presidential election, 60 Minutes II ran a story about how George W. Bush got preferential treatment as he glided through his time in the Texas Air National Guard. The story was anchored on four memos that, it turns out, were of unknown origin. By the time you read this, the independent commission hired by the network to examine the affair may have released its report, and heads may be rolling. Dan Rather and company stand accused of undue haste, carelessness, excessive credulity, and, in some minds, partisanship, in what has become known as "Memogate."

But CBS's critics are guilty of many of the very same sins. First, much of the bloggers' vaunted fact-checking was seriously warped. Their driving assumptions were often drawn from flawed information or based on faulty logic. Personal attacks passed for analysis. Second, and worse, the reviled MSM often followed the bloggers' lead.As mainstream media critics of CBS piled on, rumors shaped the news and conventions of sourcing and skepticism fell by the wayside. Dan Rather is not alone on this one; respected journalists made mistakes all around.


Journalists, producers, right-wing bloggers, lefty bloggers -- in the end, the only victor was the White House, which still is enjoying the temporary reprieve from increasingly solid evidence that not only was Bush almost certainly absent without leave for a goodly portion of his Vietnam-era National Guard duty, but that his records had been subsequently purged and otherwise tampered with by his campaign in an attempt to hide the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. it was fascinating that nobody doubted the dishonesty
of bush's national guard service{i.e. he wasn't where he was supposed to be and he lied about it} -- just that the report wasn't ''official'' enough.
every one agreed that bush had been up to something fishy and was covering it up -- but the msm was some how to blame for the story.

if the premise that good democracy is driven by an educated, informed public --
then this democracy has been without a pulse for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KayLaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. That story should never go away
The entire thing was fishy and took focus away from the story. Also, it made Bush look like a victim in the eyes of many suckers. No one should be in any rush to throw stones at Rather. Look at the lies many reporters repeated about the trashing of the White House and Air Force One. I havent heard a single apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah..............
the right wing attack machine worked overtime to discredit the methodology involved, but never did they refute the facts.
The gullible American people ate it right up.
The facts were true, Bush shirked his responsibility in the TANG. But the story was turned around to be the delivery of those facts, not the facts themselves. An American public asleep at the wheel made it all possible.
RoveCo. earned their money on that one. They're seriously sick bastards. It'll all come crashing down some day, the very devices they use to lie and distort will turn on their masters one day.
That will be a day to remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. I seem to remember that secretary who stated the information
contained within the memos being true but doubting the authenticity of the one(s) Rather relied upon. Funny how those "critics" overlook this lil gem.

Was I dreaming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. No you weren't
The basic substance of Rathers charges - that Bush was AWOL, that he disobeyed orders to get a physical, that he didn't complete his term of service, and that he has contineously lied about it - is true.

There's an elephant in the room that nobody talks about, yet they complain becuase all of the peanuts are gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Scout1071 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I remember seeing an interview with the secretary and she stated that
she believed the documents were not the originals, BUT SHE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THEY REFLECTED NEARLY VERBATIM WHAT SHE HAD TYPED IN THE ORIGINALS AND THAT THEY ACCURATELY REFLECTED HER BOSS' VIEWS OF GEORGE BUSH AND THE SPECIAL TREATMENT HE WAS RECEIVING. She went on to say that her boss had told her on several occasions that he was receiving pressure from his superior's to let Bush pass.

I have been repeating this for months and nobody (outside of DU) seems to want to listen. Why didn't those follow-up interviews with that secretary make any of the MSM?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. President aWol.
But for their gold-plated lies, this administration would not exist.

Their team has the best liars, working on the taxpayer's dime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. *ONE* Lie (Lips) Brought Down George I. How Many Will It Take for Shrub?
Not that the lips-thing was the ONLY lie George the First uttered. But it was about TAXES, the ultimate golden bull of the Repukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
8. Broken record here - kind of like a CD, remember, what we had before
we started downloading to our Ipods? Anyway it means something we keep repeating over and over-

For example: MSM IS complicit. Yes, MSM is complicit, and is the paid propaganda outlet for BushCo, and works in mysterious often very Rovian ways. MSM is complicit. MSM complicit. They will set up Dan Rather for memogate but never ever out Shrub for past or present military crimes. MSM IS complicit!

(Yes, Lyn the Dem and Dkos, I know I'm preaching to the choir.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. Not only that, the documents themselves may very well be genuine
As the chorusing of the unswervatives drowns out reality, this is the real truth: CBS could not verify their authenticity because they didn't have originals. Once CBS withdrew it's allegation, the burden of proof rests on those who refer to them as "forgeries". The burden of proof rests on the accuser in this society, so anyone who dismisses them as fakes is deliberately lying, stupid, or too prejudiced to care.

Yes, these are mere leaves that obscure the real issues: Junior used privilege to get out of combat, sucked very expensive training at public expense with no intention of honoring his commitment, broke his contract in many ways, lied about it repeatedly and used position to destroy evidence and destroy people who tried to get the truth out. Even if the letters were forgeries, this is all provable and damning: he's a lazy, greedy, pampered coward without a scruple to his name.

The reason I carp on about the letters is that my instincts tell me that they're copies of authentic, personal memos, and if so, this makes the story so much more compelling to the average schmo: it shows that not only are these dicks liars of the first rank, they're vigorous propagandists and unscrupulous to the marrow.

Killian wasn't a typist, and the brevity of the memos (and at least one typo) fit with this kind of person's M.O. The letters may very well have been written on typewriters of the kind available, the signatures look authentic to those who know, and the whole thing fits with the CYA bent that he was on: he didn't like Junior, was offended by the flagrant favoritism and sloth, knew that records were vulnerable due to Junior's connections and gave a damn. To have made duplicate files in addition to the ones his secretary said existed at one point makes perfect sense. The only thing that casts doubt is some of the terminology, which has been pointed out to smell more like Army speak than Air Force lingo. This doesn't sound conclusive so far, but it sure as hell would be interesting to know.

For one thing, forensic analysts can examine the paper stock and toner and try to match it with copiers that would have been at the base where the documents were purloined.

I want this to come back. I want them to huff up with dudgeon and say it's been vetted and he's been "cleared" over and over. This just shows their despicable dishonesty with each step, and the Swift Boat lies can be thrown in their face to boot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 24th 2017, 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC