Dan Rather and CBS must suffer extreme consequences for continuing to stonewall the American public on the putative Bush memos. Because for decades CBS has had one of the most important licenses in American broadcasting, they have special responsibility to the people of this nation. The puerile defense offered by Dan Rather this evening on the CBS News (transcripts here) is an insult to the citizens of this country and potential liability to the two-party system as we know it. The extraordinary personal selfishness of Rather at a time national crisis is beyond comprehension. If this continues much longer, Viacom better consider dumping CBS fast.
More here.
Also, those who are still wondering about my defintion of the “New Reactionaries,” think Juan Williams when he says, as he did on the Brit Hume Show this evening, that it doesn’t matter if these memos are forgeries, only if their substance is true.
UPDATE: I was interested Eugene Volokh’s (via Glenn) roundup of the legal implications of all this, but slightly sad they weren’t more ominous. Because when you think of what Rather could have done, uncriticized by bloggers (working, unlike him, virtually for nothing), it’s blood curdling.
UPDATE: Wretchard’s view. [He's right, isn't he, as usual?-ed. Yup, but we're not letting up. And neither is he.]
So what are We the People suppose to do. I’m sure many, like myself, have been bombarding CBS News with complaints – apparently without effect.
Boycott their sponsors?
Don’t hold it back, Roger, it’s not healthy for you. Tell us what you _really_ think, let it all out of your system.
Drollery aside, I agree with you. That so-called “defense” on CBS an hour ago was such an insult to my intelligence that I feared for the integrity of my brain tissue. Rather acted as if the only things at issue were the much-famed superscript “th”, two signatures and the Times New Roman font. He addressed NOTHING – literally NOTHING – else. He even had the gall to read back the first CBS statement from early this afternoon virtually verbatim.
Enter my vote for “this cannot stand”.
-Joe-
wow Dan that was lame! CBS continues to refer to these “experts” who confirmed that these typewritten memos are authentic:
1. a handwriting expert whose previous claim to fame was arguing that Kurt Cobain’s suicide note was faked.
2. a college professor who admits he has no background in document analysis, and who only states that he doesnt think that the documents are fake, and that he happens to agree with the sentiments contained in the memos
3. the “unimpeachable” anonymous source who gave Dan the documents
notice something missing from the CBS report… that is, airtime given to anyone who found these documents suspicious. That is some GOOD JOURNALISM going on there. “Rightwing bloggers are spreading lies that these memos were written using Microsoft Word, and thus could not have been typed in 1973. A CBS investigation has revealed that computers did indeed exist as far back as the 1940′s, disproving these rumors. No further inquiries are required.”
Rather wins, I’m afraid.
Rather does not have to prove the documents are real. All he has to do is make a halfway decent case that, hey, they are GOOD ENOUGH FAKES that we at CBS can be excused for being fooled. Heck, even our hired expert was fooled!
Then he can leave the documents behind as relatively unimportant, and move on to the he-said/he-said aspects of the story. That shift was already apparent in his defense tonight.
This will probably work, sad to say, and Ol’ Dan will keep his job.
I want to know how CBS and Sixty Minutes has the audacity to give prime time to every peddler of an anti-Bush book or an anti-Bush claim and can completely ignore the Swift Boaters except to try to denigrate them. They are not even pretending to be neutral anymore. We live in interesting times.
OT but back to the important things, via Lucianne:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraqi forces have captured four “important” suspects from Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terror network, Iraq’s interim prime minister said Thursday. Speaking during a visit to an Iraqi training camp north of Baghdad, Ayad Allawi told recruits that the four “important suspects of al-Qaida who came from abroad” were arrested Wednesday but he did not say where or how.
Byron–
Don’t bet on it. The other nets have a dog in this fight, and they would dearly love to run a red-hot poker through Dan’s superannuated anus.
The phony memos aren’t Rather’s only problem:
The Ben Barnes interview by Dan Rather set the table for the introduction of the phony memos about George Bushís service in the Texas Air National Guard. The story line was: rich boy got undeserved special treatment, performed poorly, and lied about it ever since. Hence the credibility of Ben Barnes in that interview is important.
We already know that Barnes is the #3 Kerry contributor through bundling, and that Barnes has a past full of scandals, including allegations by federal prosecutors that Barnes bribed a lottery company executive to the tune of $500,000. These are issues that go to Barnesí credibility. However, we didnít learn these things from Dan Rather.
Nor did we learn about Dan Ratherís personal fund raising efforts on behalf of the Travis County Democratic Party, where Ben Barnes sits on the Finance Council. Rather raised $20,000 for the organization on March 21, 2001. Rather has extensive personal ties to Travis county: he owns a home in the Austin area, and his daughter Robin, an environmentalist and marketing executive, is said to have considered running for mayor of Austin as a Democrat. Rather has sometimes now said that he attended the fundraiser as a favor to his daughter, but he told Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post on April 4, 2001 that he agreed to appear ìat the invitation of an old friend, Austin City Council member Will Wynn.î Ratherís appearance at a Democratic Party fundraiser was contrary to the official policies of CBS and most of the MSM.
Now, three years later, Rather interviewed the same fellow without disclosing the reporterís previous involvement in raising money for the Democratic Party of Travis County, or his other, even larger, conflict of interest. If Robin Rather wants to have a future in Democratic politics in Austin, she needs the support of Ben Barnes and the other movers and shakers among Travis County Democrats, including those on the Finance Council.
Dan Rather had no business conducting the interview with Ben Barnes because of his extensive conflicts of interests. Since he chose to do the interview anyway, at a minimum he should have disclosed his conflicts, or CBS should have done so for him.
God, I’m sounding more like Terrye every day! :^o
Rather and CBS are utterly brazen in their disrespect for the public and its intelligence. This election needs to be a referendum on not only terrorism but on the manipulating and cheating old media, as well.
Ah, Williams has fallen prey to “The Krugman Disease” (thinking of his defense of “F 911″ as showing essential truths despite the falsehoods in it).
I wonder if CBS will go out of their way to commemorate 9/11 to try and take the heat off of this story. If I were in their shoes, I certainly would. It will be interesting to see if any there are any schedule changes in the next week.
Fresh:
I’d like you to be right, but I’m skeptical. With Rather at the desk, CBS News is consistently well behind NBC and ABC in the ratings. A discredited Rather would do even worse. That sounds like good news for the other networks, not bad news.
I’m also skeptical that information that impugns Rather’s objectivity will matter very much. He is widely known to be a Democratic Party water boy, so what else is new? It’s like an expose of the NYT for being a liberal newspaper and the editorial mouthpiece for the left wing of the Democratic Party. Film at eleven.
I can only say that I hope a fire is burning and that it continues to burn until it consumes the entire organization.
This is totally wrong and cannot stand.
ABC Radio just reported possible problems with the docs so I think that their is still hope that this is not going to go away. Maybe others will start trying to cover their ass while throwing CBS to the wolves to save themselves.
Dan’s next book?
The Blogosphere Never Blinks
Since Rather is a participant in this matter, he cannot serve as an objective judge in his own case. If CBS is intersted in being objective, or even in giving the impression of being objective, they will require Rather to recuse himself and will have further reporting on this issue done by another journalist.
Here’s what strikes me:
The real story of this election season, if I may look ahead to November 3 and beyond, is not the Swift Boats, the Texas National Guard, the Vietnam war or even the war on terror and Iraq. No, the real story is this: The media. The media is supposed to REPORT the story. This year, the media IS the story — with CBS News as the pinnacle of a “coming-out” that has been emerging all year. How the traditional media HANDLED the stories, the blogosphere, and so forth is more compelling than what happened in the early 1970′s.
What will tomorrow’s media look like? How does the old media (NYT, LAT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, and of course CBS) regroup, if at all?
Jim
Byron00
Well, surprising though it may be, there are actually lots of people who don’t know these things and believe that those organs of the Democratic party are actually giving them objective truth. For this reason it’s important to get the real truth out.
Someone should write a book. Oh wait, Bernard Goldberg already did.
This story is more important than what occurred in Iraq today. This is the end of an era in news reporting. CBS has not only shafted themselves but also all of the main stream media. The blogosphere has shown it’s power. The King is dead, all hail the King!
May you live in interesting times, indeed.
Fresh Air:
I will take that as a compliment.
I think. At least you use preview so I doubt anyone will confuse us. I will be the one with the typos.
Roger:
Penwil and I also noticed Juan’s performance. A regular little soldier wasn’t he? Ours is not to question why……
I feel a nasty letter coming on.
“…the real story is this: The media.”
Exactly, jaccubs. In this case, it is not enough for the blogosphere to hold CBS accountable for their blatant Michael Mooreish propaganda. If the rest of old media doesn’t spank Rather and his network hard, then they are all culpable. They need to police their own, or they de facto tell us, the public, that they have no standards and are not answerable to anyone. (Which we already know, of course—)
Rather’s Last Stand.
He believes that he can get away with it even though the evidence grows clearer that the documents are forged. However, he won’t be able to get away with it. He can no longer say they were fooled. As of tonight, “Oops” no longer works. Now he will look pathetic. Yes, it is being undercovered to a degree in MSM, but so was the Swiftie stuff. In a truly laughable moment tonight Mark Shields continued to act as if no questions have been raised at all about the memo and had all kinds of questions about why Bush didn’t show up for the physical and what might have been wrong physically with him that he didn’t want a record of (despite Shields’ silence to the fact that Kerry hasn’t released his medical records nor most of his military records). Shields is turning into a Saturday Night Live character.
This will come out. It is important that all of the evidence about the forgeries be collated into one long indictment. Juan can wish all he wants that a forgery wouldn’t matter, but any fool and his dog can see through that nonsense. Folks like Williams and Shields lived out their own personal versions of a Michael Moore movie in August and blithely ignored Kerry’s collapse. Let them fiddle while Kerry burns. Rather is going to be toast (his voice was severely hoarse tonight).
Despite my own long term gripes about the media and acknowledging more than a bit of schadenfreude, there is something sad and troubling about the fact that such important journalists have squandered their idealism for getting to the truth and compromised their integrity so brazenly. On the other hand, the efforts of those individuals distributed across the blogosphere like Roger, LGF, Prof. Reynolds, Don Sensing, Allah, Powerline, Captain Ed, Hewitt, Wretchard and many more is quietly inspiring and more than a little hopeful about the strength of our system to create new avenues to check and analyze those who exercise power.
I wouldn’t worry too much about Rather getting off easy. If the Dems lose this November, and I think they will, the recriminations will begin. Losing to a moron like Bush? Someone screwed up. I think Rather will be at the top of the list, followed by Kerry and his “team.”
Driving home today I listened to NPR. They did a segment on the memoes and all they talked about was the forgery angle. Clicking through the channels I LSO saw a CNN segment. All they talked about was the forgeries. They even, Charles of LGF, said they typed it into Word and the letters matched up.
Blood is in the water. The sharks won’t spare Rather as he thrashes about in the deep end.
This is worse than the Howell Raines/Jason Blair situation. Let’s go back and retrace how Raines got got and try to replicate it. Form my recollection (faulty as it may be at the advanced age of 64) I seem to recall the blogosphere played a fairly large role in bringing Raines to ground.
The same process has begun, and the facts are against the Rather wing of CBS. How can this process be advanced. IMO, this site, its regular commenters and those that access it (Beldar, Sensing, Glenn, Volokh, etc.) can make this happen.
Am I wrong?
I don’t know what the ultimate outcome of all this will be. Who knows, maybe Rather will pull it off in the end.
But, nobody will ever forget it and there will always be the doubt.
Tonight ,Gale, who is as apolitical as you can be in this world looked at me after Juan’s performance and said “They are really out to get Bush aren’t they? Whatever it takes they don’t care”
Believe me if he sees it, a lot of people will see it.
Barry D:
I was writing while you were posting. My compliments.
Maybe there really are “two Americas”: those who blindly trust everything they hear from Rather, Brokaw and Jennings; and those who get their information from the new media (blogosphere included), filter out what inherent partisanship there resides, and gleans the facts for themselves.
I predict that the concept of “open source journalism” is going to pick up steam …
It seems to me that once CBS hired an accredited expert, they covered themselves. It’s the due diligence tapdance. And once the expert said the documents look real, that was the green light and it was off to the races for Dan and “60 Minutes”. Why not? Rather isn’t posing as an expert, he’s merely taking the word of someone who is. How can Dan be blamed if the expert later turns out to have been mistaken? As long as Rather does not substitute his own judgment for the expert’s, he’s fine.
On another level, this is Old media against New, and I can imagine Ol’ Dan chuckling tonight over his glass of Jack Daniels: “I got your internet right here, blog boy! Log onto this!”
But it’s a rearguard holding action, Dan. Distributed knowledge is the better model, just like Hayek said.
Yes vnjagvet you are wrong. After Raines left the NYT, it didn’t get any less biased, did it? I want a main stream media that reports the news. Leave Rather alone until no one watches him. Only then will (maybe) there be any progress.
Here’s Jane’s take at the end of the Blair/Raines saga:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004200.html
It sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
If this turns out to be as bad as it looks like it will, Rather-gate will accelerate the collapse of the MSM as we now know it.
The advent of Cable TV and the Blogosphere has shortened the shelf life of the MSM already, and the, ahem, advancing age of the Big Three anchors for ABC, NBC, and CBS was already going to leave a huge hole when they were gone.
The NYTimes continues to wrap itself into a deeper cocoon, and the Laphams of the world have been outed.
Assuming a comfortable Bush victory in November, the biggest scapegoat after Kerry just might be Rather and gang. And the amazing thing is that a large share of the responsibility will be a bunch of what they will call “amateur bloggers.”
How righteous is that?
K:
I think we are arguing about tactics now. I like incremental steps (e.g. singles and doubles in baseball) not necessarily homers. I will accept a homer if you can show us how.
I am merely suggesting a successful model.
jaccubs – “What will tomorrow’s media look like?” A lot like that in the 18th and 19th centuries (I am using my old Selectric, so I can do that cute superscript thingee). That means wildly and blatantly partisan, and making no bones about it. TO figure out if that will work, you might want to read Ralph Peters’ excellent essay A Plague of Ideas. I believe that much of the left might qualify as “informationally crippled” in Peters’ terms.
Does knowingly providing a forged document rise to the level of a “third rate burglary”?
If so, someone within CBS needs to consider the fact that the identity of “Deep Throat” is still unknown. There are others within CBS aside from Rather who know the provenance of Rather’s forgeries. If they have any respect for their craft they need to get the information out. If they are concerned about their identity being revealed I would suggest that they retain one of the blogging attorneys from Powerline, or Beldar, or even Glen and make their disclosure through them. Perhaps one of those blogging attorneys could offer an explanation of the inviolability of attorney client communications on their blogs.
If vnjagvet is around perhaps he could comment on the feasibility of what I am suggesting.
PO Box 34567? That’s the kind of combination an IDIOT would have on his luggage!
Rick:
See Volokh tonight:
http://volokh.com/
for a pretty good start on the criminal stuff. This is just the beginning. If anyone can figure out how they are harmed in their business by this stuff, there may be some RICO implications, although that is a “way out” thought.
This will draw some attention from many fronts. Watergate took a while to really get going, of course, so time will tell.
Some of the freepers are discussing that a Jim Moore (Bush’s Brain) is either the unnamed source of the documents or he is one of the unnamed sources authenticating the documents.
Oscar: Thanks for the link.
So, is “wildly and blatantly partisan” a good thing? And how different is that from today, I wonder?
I’m all for exposing the partisanship of the MSM, and even get a bit of a devilish joy out of watching Rather squirm.
But truth is still an ideal that I yearn for in news reporting.
Terrye–
I’m not sure if your writing reminds me more of Ernest Hemingway or Martha Gellhorn. Either way, it’s a compliment.
I’ve decided to take a holiday from Preview for a while. I now have an extra hour to spend each day.
vnjagvet,
I wasn’t suggesting a blogging attorney for the purpose of defense against a criminal charge. The suggestion was to retain a blogging attorney as a means of protecting the identity of the person identifying the provenance of the documents. Someone else at CBS certainly knows who gave the forgeries to Rather.
Burning a source of fraudulent material is no big deal but burning Rather is something else.
Prediction :
Tomorrow, the old guard of the mainstream media will declare that Dan Rather has successfully defended against the allegations of forged documents.
After two or three days to see if that dog hunts, they will declare the strident noise of the bloggers to be radical right-wing nutcases.
Life goes on in media-land.
Meanwhile, Edwards keeps calling for Bush to ‘answer the charges’ contained in the memos. Which of course Bush cannot do – as they are made up and therefore have no answer.
The SWBT Vets come out with their next release and the press, and the public have a collective ‘oh not again’ moment and dismiss the real charges of Kerry’s treason with the leadership of Vietnam while still a uniformed officer of the United States.
Fox, a few of the more right-leaning media, and the right-leaning part of the blogosphere sit here and mutter into our beers.
Say it ain’t so!
In the mid-80′s I was a Democrat. For years I had thought the news was a little biased, but so what. There were so many obvious untruths published about Ronald Reagan. There were stories that were repeated even after I had seen them debunked. There was much sneering at Reagan by journalists. Finally I saw a televised White House press conference where it seemed to me the President was openly mocked by the reporters in attendance. That opened my eyes and I started looking at all news reports in a new way. Once I looked I saw bias everywhere. It’s not very hard to spot, is it?
That’s why I want Rather to stay at CBS. He is so blatantly biased that he will open new eyes every broadcast. I bet the CBS Evening News tonight opened thousands of eyes just by the difference in the ‘th’ between the two documents shown. Some defense, eh?
You know he’s gonna get away with it. Sure he might lose a point or two in the ratings. The rest of the MSM pick poke at him a little, but they won’t deliver anything close to a killing blow, else it could be there necks on the bock next time. Sure Fox will give it some decent coverage, but it’s still a cable channel with a limited audience, most of which already trends liberal. I still think that Bush will win the election, but the events of the past few weeks convince me that we probably won’t win this war. Oh, I don’t think we’re all gonna die, at least not quickly, but soon Europe will fall to the enemy. The other major powers will come to some kind of accomadation, and keep selling arms. America will fight on for a while, but isolated abroad, and, more fatally, undermined at home, America will give ground. Key allies will be lost to the tide of terror. World trade will be constricted, which will hurt American prosperity, undercutting the ability to pay for the war.
Let’s face it – at least 20% of Americans really don’t the US want to win this war, and another 15% aren’t really sure who they want to win (can’t decide who is less evil, the Taliban or the Bu$shitler). That first 20% contains a disproportionate number of opinion makers and cultural leaders. There’s also very little “loyal opposition” left in politics (sorry Joe, you’re all alone). If losing the war in Iraq is what is required to unseat Bush, the vocal leadership of the Democrat party seems to consider it a small price to pay.
Winning battles and winning fights is often a matter of guts and grit. Often the winner is the guy who is too stupid and/or too stubborn to know he’s beaten. War is not about who is right, it is about who is left. The Dems and the media (but I repeat myself) demand some kind of Platonically perfect version of a war, else its a quagmire, it’s Vietnam all over again!! What would these lefties and squishes (paging Andrew Sullivan) have said after Guadacanal, Kasserine Pass, the Bulge or, god forbid, Dieppe. At the very least they would have called for Churchill and Roosevelt to be impeached, Eisenhower, MacAurthur, Bradley, King and Nimitz to be sacked. Of course, if Nimitz, Eisenhower et al had been sacked, they would not have written a book and campaigned against FDR while the war was still going on (MacAurthur – well, that’s another story).
After WW II the Germans talked about “a stab in the back”. Let’s see – Germany had been at war for 4 years, was starving, they were running out of raw materials to build munitions, every male of even vaguely military age was on the front line, and America, with its almost unlimited manpower and industry was getting into the game. Constrast that with the comemteriat throwing up their soft little hands in sespair and racing each other to declaw a quagmire after only FIVE DAYS because of a little sandstorm – and because the enemy had the unmitigated gaul to actually counterattack. When the paper of record spills more ink on the abuse at Abu Grhraib than all of the heros and medal winners of this war, Saddam;s abuses and the very real successes of the troops on the ground combined? When a major American daily runs picture of cheap Russian porn and tries to pass it off as actions of the military -and nobody gets fired? At least Piers Morgan was sacked – shows that a lefty rag in England has more integrity than it’s American version. How is it that the WaPo is letting a gen Xer with a hate-on for America run its Baghdad bureau? How in the hell can you win a war when half of the opinion-makers think like that? Why is this post/rant starting to sound like Jadakiss?
I’m frankly shocked we’ve done as well as we have.
everyone
I haven’t read all the various threads, but has anyone raised and/or answered the question of when “cover your ass” became common currency in organizations?
I remember first hearing it in the . . . 1980s?
1990s?
Did the term originate in the military?
Volokh is only scratching the surface of the potential criminal charges. Falsification of government documents comes to mind.
holdfast
Buck up. Live up to your moniker. We still have more friends than we commonly give credence. Additionally, some still have to make up their minds. Putin has, although I do not know to what effect. China has not weighed in yet. Northern Europe, other than the Dutch, have not woken to the problem yet. France is … well … France. Eastern Europe are on our side.
We have not yet gotten ourselves organized on a global basis for this fight. It will not take too much more (Madrid, Malaysia, Beslan) for there to be a call to address this globally (not the U.N.)
The whole world is waiting for us to finish these elections and show our intentions. It is excusable, on their parts, as the internationalists among us have been saying that Bush will be defeated and our policies will change.
With that behind us, the world’s leaders (excepting Chirac) can get on with real committed actions.
Holdfast.
Hmmm–my suggestion: Stop! sit back and look at the big picture–Kerry is getting his ass kicked in every major state and his internals are in the tank–The American public doesnt give a damn about Rather or the facts of the case–The President should continue to present his case to the public and drive on. Bush is really effective on the stump–listen to the sound bites–Kerry gets NO applause; Bush does. The Median and Dems will turn on themselves after Bush wins in November and they will take no prisoners among themselves.
Yes, the Rather “defense” was off target and putrid. The public wasnt watching! It is Friday nite for God’s sakes. The public has already dealt with the Bush AWOL charges–they dont give damn. He has been President for almost four years–Tomorrow, the 9/11 outrage will fill TVs and Bush wins that debate hands down. ESPN did a wonderful spot on 9/11. You couldnt watch that without crying.
The Blogosphere won this one: Rather has had to mount some kind of defense how ever lame. Fox, Rush and the “VRWC” will put the nail in the coffin–even the two or three intelligent people on the left. Yglesias and Marshall have come to see the documents are forgeries–The American public doesnt give a s**t. They are thinking: who is safer. Advantage Bush.
The post election feeding frenzy will end many careers: McAuliffe, the MSM and numerous idiots like Tom Harkin who arent smart enough to keep their mouths shut.
When the enemy is committing suicide: Stand Back and let them finish the job.
Rick B,/B>
Well, I’m trying to think that one through.
Does this definitely have to be the case?
Probably.
WEEKLY STANDARD makes the point that the kind of person who would be easily fooled by these forgeries (assuming they are forgeries, which at this point I do) would be a person too young to remember typing on actual typewriters.
That was the first thing I’d read that struck me as pure common sense, and a reason why CBS could have been fooled so easily.
I love the observation that some of Bush’s other Guard documents have superscripts.
Well, yeah. I remember making superscripts on a Selectric myself.
They look nothing like superscripts in Word.
I agree with Roger, in spades.
This incident is a blatant attempt by a publicly held company to sway a national election by fraud.
Where are all the unwashed anticorporate mobs now? What CBS is doing is the distillation of every whackjob conspiracy theory advanced by the Bildenberger Early Warning System since the McCarthy days.
This isn’t an incident to be reflected on in the wake of an election – it is a direct attack on the mechanism of free elections by a corporate entity hiding behind the wilfull,obscene corruption of our dearest freedom – the freedom of speech.
This is as if a court recessed in order for the clerk to type up documents as evidence of a plaintiff’s guilt, all on the judge’s public order in front of the jury.
This must not stand.
Catherine,
Mid to late ’60′s. Common usage after about ’75. I believe it originated in the military.
No officer would ever use it on a memo. It would be dispositive proof of failure to perform or at minimum to report undue influence. Wouldn’t look too hot in a court martial. “I knew it was wrong but I wrote this memo – see.”
At least that’s the way I see it. vnjagvet may be able to add a bit of clarity.
Catherine: the term CYA has been in the army as long as I was: February 1961 til I retired in 1986.
Catherine
FUBAR, CYA, and others came from the military. I was kind of an inside joke. Making fun of the acronyms so common in the military.
I think they may go back to WWII.
They crept over to corporate organizations with the return of the Vets from the wars. At first it was code between those that ‘were there.’
I remember them as a child on an Air Force Base outside of Frankfurt, Germany late in the 50s.
(I was minus 10 then)
Priviwn is my friend!
FUBAR, CYA, and others came from the military. I was kind of an inside joke. Making fun of the acronyms so common in the military.
Should read:
FUBAR, CYA, and others came from the military. It was kind of an inside joke. Making fun of the acronyms so common in the military.
OT:
Colleagues: You all are placing an undue burden on me–I have to be gone 3 hours a day for radiation treatments–I have to urinate every hour therefrom. The pace of this discussion is surpassing my ability to maintain health or bodily functions–For God’s sake: Slow down!
Now from a public health standpoint (that would be me): if you are a man over 45–get your PSA checked; if you are a woman over 40: have a mammogram. Trust me: it will save your life and make all of this crap we are talking about pale by comparison.
Catherine,
There are a small circle of producers and editors who had to have met with Rather in preparation for this fiasco. Would they let him take the whole operation down the tube without knowing the provenance of the docs? I realize that they let the slimebag Barnes admit that he either perjured himself in ’99 or was lying Wednesday night but if they didn’t even demand the provenance of the docs then they deserve to go right along with Rather.
There has to be someone at CBS with more charactor than a pimp. And they need to start talking.
RogerA
I didn’t know. God be with you in your fight!
Also: good advice.
Good news about a blog: it will be here as you feel up to fussing with us.
John Lynch and others: Ah Ha–Acronym time from the US Army (these have been around since I was a slick sleeved private)
FUBAR: F***ed Up Beyond All Recognition
WAHUBA: We Are Highly Unimpressed by Amateurs
FIGMO: F*** IT Got My Orders
Muaaaah: Origin Unknown; supposedly comes from the experience of the 2d Cavalry during its days in the Seminole Campaign; but since the 2d Cav is my home Regiment, I never hear the story when I was a LT
John Lynch
Yes, indeedy!
Since I subscribe to British newspapers, it’s gonna be fun, this weekend, watching as they wake up to the fact that they’re looking at Four More Years.
On the whole the FT & certainly THE ECONOMIST do terrific reporting on the U.S., but they’re still just “foreign” enough to be taken by surprise on this one.
The FT has been saying forever that a Kerry presidency “will be no different.”
But it hasn’t really crossed their minds, in anything other than a theoretical kind of way, that there isn’t going to be a Kerry presidency.
I sense reality will be dawning this weekend.
Heh.
(quoting instapundit & all the rest)
RogerA
You are bringing some of it back for me!
There were what seemed like hundreds of these. Some of them were unit specific.
As children on the base, we made up our own. They never seemed to have the magic that the ‘real ones’ had though.
Especially the ones that involved curse words.
John–Thanks so much; doing fine–My point really was implicit: the speed the blogosphere moves is both a good thing and a bad thing–Good because it surfaces detailed analysis quickly; bad, because the news cycles moves so fast, we forget in short order the significant truths that emerge–I hope somewhere some cosmic historian is capturing these discussions.
Perhaps it is our host for his book: I hope so, because “our” story needs to be told.
Catherine:
You read my mind. I also wondered when CYA came into use. How would a person find that out?
And I thought about the age thing also. I learned to type on an Underwood.[if you can call this typing] In typing class we had to type now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country over and over again. When I was a senior in high school I got a new IBM and I thought it was the berries.
I think the technical aspects of this are interesting, but I also found Killian’s widow’s remarks very telling. The woman was adamant, her husband did not write these things. She seemed genuinely upset that her dead hsuband was being used.
I also think the fact that after years of controversy that all but the most partisan of Democrats find tedious and silly this suddenly comes to light. A September surprise.
How could a rational person not wonder about the circumstances of this?
There was a history between O’Neil and Kerry but so far as I know Killian was considered an admirer of Bush’s.
Rick B
Thank you!
The “CYA” jumped out at me for exactly that reason.
I have to say this part of it is as shocking to me as anything, since presumably the staff members dealing with these memos are writers, at least some of them.
Seriously: I probably would only have noticed the problems with the type subliminally, but the “CYA” just smacked me between the eyes.
The entire point of a CYA memo is to CYA.
RogerA
Hang in there!
Terrye: ask the OFs on this list (blush). At least since the early 1960s. I dont think many folks understand the WWII origins of terms you might have heard: the whole nine yards refers to the amount of 50 cal ammo loaded into a the MGs of the B17; you knew you had been in a fight when you fired the “whole nine yards” Balls to the wall does NOT refer to a part of male anatomy: it refers to the balls on top of the throttles of a B-17. When you wanted full power, you put the throttles all the way forward and they hit the firewall; thus, balls to the wall. Aint army life grand?
Holdfast
Boy, do you bring up a lot of issues. Good job.
“If losing the war in Iraq is what is required to unseat Bush, the vocal leadership of the Democrat party seems to consider it a small price to pay.”
I know this is going OT, but…
Sometimes I have to be hit in the head with a hammer. I do think, now that you have said it, that you are correct about the above. Everytime I think I’m beginning to get an understanding of what is going on, I get broadsided by someone in the comments here. I mean that in a good way of course. The above quote from you makes me extremly sad, quite frankly.
I am one in a family of 15-20 that has become a voter and supporter of GWB. Its one thing to read and attempt to understand all the information that is out there, its another to get down to the real basics of what is going on in this election. A couple of weeks ago a commenter said that not only do they (the dems) want to stop what is going on, they want to reverse the positives that have occured.
I guess my discussions with the family need to sharpen up a great deal on my end.
Never mind. I just read the thread and my question concerning CYA was answered. darn.
Roger A:
Sickness has a tendency to put things in perspective.
Keep that in mind holdfast.
Catherine, thanks–And BTW: why do I envision all the female posters here as reminding me of a combination of Ingrid Bergman and Katherine Hepburn?
CYA memos ARE done–If you have a problem or see something going wrong, you can write a Memorandum for: Record. You put the facts as you see them into this memorandum and file it if the situation blows up on you later. It is NOT something that goes up the chain of command.
Rick B
There are a small circle of producers and editors who had to have met with Rather in preparation for this fiasco
I don’t know . . . I have a friend who is a long-time producer for Peter Jennings, and I don’t get the sense that the producers are in a position to ride herd at all. The hierarchical nature of the relationship seems pretty absolute to me, judging from afar (way afar).
I could be completely wrong about this, but I have just never gotten the sense that when you’re talking about a “Star Anchor” like Rather, Brokaw or Jennings there’s any kind of normal relationship of authority.
My guess would be that if the “unimpeachable” source is somebody important and/or famous enough to get to Rather directly, rather than through a staff member, no one on the CBS Evening News staff would insist on knowing who it was if Rather didn’t want to say.
Assuming for the sake of argument that that’s the case, it’s a Big Fat Clue: it means that the source of the forgery was someone Big.
Big enough to get Dan Rather on the phone.
Lot of assumptions there . . .
Catherine
I read BBC, The Telegraph, and Le Monde. They seem clueless. Perhaps the Telegraph has some sense of the strength of the right here.
The weeklies such as the Economist seem better researched but to my eye still do not quite have their finger on our pulse.
My friends in Holland were both appalled and intrigued by my attitudes. Their government has supported us, to their dismay. They listen to me, object frequently, and are too polite to really get into it.
They were in NY during the convention. We had a family-to-family call Sunday when they got home.
They had a great time in NY. We had arranged U.S. Open (tennis) tickets for them. They saw a good deal of the street protests. They also talked to the police – a lot.
When they got home, they had many more serious questions about what is happening. They believe they have a major stake in the elections. They were asking questions relative to their own safety. Very similar concerns to our voters. Are we going to stick with it? Are we going to ‘go after them?’ or ‘wait for them to hit again.’
It is a global issue.
mudmarine: One of my great truths I learned was to trust marines–there is no one you would rather have on your flank or rear than a marine, because you KNEW they would be there–trust your instincts–they will be right.
TimJUtah
This incident is a blatant attempt by a publicly held company to sway a national election by fraud.
That’s the sentence I needed.
More letter writing tomorrow.
On that subject, I have already written one letter to WAPO telling them how terrific I think Dobbs is, for the Swift Boat piece.
I’m going to write another tomorrow, along with a letter to CBS & to Viacom, and I think to the FCC saying pretty much exactly what you’ve just said.
They really are seriously over the line here.
This is way past what-liberal-media.
Terrye
I think the technical aspects of this are interesting, but I also found Killian’s widow’s remarks very telling
Well, her comments are just utterly damning.
“I lived with him until the day he died.”
“He didn’t keep files.”
“He didn’t type.”
vnjagvet,
What about the implications of forging official government documents/forms/memos?
You know, thinking all of this over, something disturbing occured to me. These forgeries are completely inept, so they have been found out. What if they were a little less inept?
Check this out-http://www.imao.us/archives/001903.html
Now, first of all, this is really funny. But what if he hadn’t done this for a joke? This is a far better forgery(in terms of format) than the CBS docs. What if CBS had given us something like this? Would it have been caught? Certainly not by CBS. Some people would have complained, but it all would have been put down to “right-wing bloggers” and the media would have ignored it. Where would we be now if LGF hadn’t been able to do the MSWord superposition?
RogerA
OK, there is a reason to continue whiling away the hours and days and years continuing to post comments on this blog!
I can’t cut and paste the text of the CYA memo, but it sure doesn’t seem like a “normal” CYA memo to me.
My understanding of CYA memos has always been that they are meant to protect you from being blamed for whatever goes wrong.
I’ve also thought of them as typically being written and delivered to other people, not to yourself (though maybe that’s not so).
But if you were to write a CYA memo to yourself, you’d still be doing so to be able to use that personal memo later on to deflect criticism or blame.
The forged CYA memo actually concludes with the line, “I’ll backdate but won’t rate.”
Isn’t that a direct, verbal, written-down admission that he’s done something wrong?
Nothing about this is right.
military acronyms:
http://www.got-war.com/CentCom/printer-friendly.asp?threadid=67
Catherine:
And Dan expects us to believe that the other ‘evidence’ he has is from someone who knew Killian and what he ‘felt’ about things. Who knew him better than his widow and his son? But I am supposed to completely dismiss them? Maybe Juan Williams can, but it is not that easy for me.
I think Rather thought it was obvious and believable to him, so it would be to the rest of us as well. I also think he overestimated his reputation.
But honestly most people just think this is politics, and fishy politics at that. I know the Dems will come out and demand Bush respond and call him a liar, so what is new? They have never treated him with any respect, why should that change now?
But they might want to back away from this.
These docs came from somewhere and I would l like to know where. The document fairy is not a good enough explanation.
I should add that THE ECONOMIST does not take the FT line.
I can’t tell who THE ECONOMIST would prefer to see win the U.S. election.
My guess is that if they had to choose they’d go for Bush.
(Also, I agree that THE ECONOMIST seems the best researched, and the most in touch with the everyday realities & tone here.)
Gerard Baker, who was the U.S. columnist at FT when I first subscribed, was fantastic. Unfortunately he’s moved over to the London TIMES (I believe it is).
He’s also some kind of contributor to WEEKLY STANDARD, so folks should look out for him.
Catherine: Your instincts are correct–a MFR (memorandum for record, commonly referred to as a CYA) is designed to put yourself on record that you have provided info, or advocated for, a position that was not accepted by your superior(s). It is usually only done with the issue is such as to burn you if the excrement flows downhill afterwards. And your observation about the last line is a dead giveaway– that would not have been written.
Terrye
OK, that’s a keeper.
I’m going to be talking about the document fairy in the weeks and months to come.
I’m finding the situation painfully opaque, painfully in the sense that I hate being in a state of “having no clue.”
What I don’t have a clue about is: What is going on with Democrats?
How do forged documents help John Kerry?
Over and over and over and over again we have heard, from political consultants on the right and political consultants on the left, that every single day spent focusing on the subject of war, terror, war on terror, and, yes, Vietnam is a win for Bush.
Now Terry McAuliffe has given an interview “promising” (I think that was the word) to carry on raising the subject of George Bush’s National Guard service for the rest of the campaign.
This is Terry McAuliffe, for god’s sake.
Promising to see to it that every single day of the campaign remains focused on national security & the military.
The word perseveration comes to mind, but that’s not an explanation.
It’s just a description.
Catherine:
I thought it was incrminating as well and that might be why his family is so upset. His son is retired military.
But if these memos are important what about the ones that say Bush was a good pilot, above average? Are we to believe he was lying then when he praised Bush? Are we to believe neither or both memos?
So is the point that Killian is a liar who broke regs and covered for a rich boy not doing his job? And of course all this comes years after the man is dead.
very weird.
and disrepectful.
RogerA,
Would any officer use CYA as a title for Memorandum for: Record? What file would a Memorandum for: Record concerning undue command influence go to?
RogerA
Thanks—–
This, btw, is yet another sign of how profoundly alien the military and military life are to liberal media types, including even people like Mickey Kaus. (Several months ago Kaus was assuming Kerry would automatically get the veteran vote, because Kerry was a veteran and veterans vote for veterans. This was before the Swift boat campaign, but Kaus knew about the 1971 testimony. That is a very wide blind spot.)
Only a person who thinks the military is Don Rumsfeld (a person who dislikes Don Rumsfeld, that is) would believe that a “CYA” memo in the military means a guy writing down exactly what level of fraud he’s going to commit.
Catherine:
Yes I wondered about the Democrats as well.
I saw Terry M on Fox today and he was jsut as obnoxious as he could be. Really looking for a fight.
Why go after Bush on something that most people are not interested in? In fact the public might just resent the media and the Dems spending so much time on this.
Even if they came up with something it is unlikely it can be as bad Kerry’s performance in front of the Senate all those years ago,so maybe it is time they recalled what century this is.
RogerA
I have the same question Rick B has.
Would an officer title a memo “CYA”?
holdfast
Winning battles and winning fights is often a matter of guts and grit. Often the winner is the guy who is too stupid and/or too stubborn to know he’s beaten. War is not about who is right, it is about who is left.
Very well said, and very true. That reminds me of a really great story about Stonewall Jackson…but I will spare you. However things aren’t nearly so bleak as you think. Yes, we are truly our own worst enemy, or some of us are anyway. That has been true at least since we (or some of us anyway) gave away the secret of the atomic bomb to the Russians. That is one meaning of “we have met the enemy and it is us”.
To be cheered up, consider a few points. We have not had a major attack, a crazy Muslim sniper, or a deadly poison attack in the mail for three whole years. Did you believe that likely or even possible three years ago? Do you remember when the entire airline industry had to go on life support after 9/11? We’ve resuscitated it. We have brought back our entire economy from the brink of what looked like the Second Great Depression. We’re getting even richer now. We have forcibly removed a truly evil cult in what has historically been the elephant’s graveyard of great armies and we did it with very little cost. We removed one of the world’s most evil dictators and his supposedly formidable army. We have exposed the perfidy of some of our alleged allies at no extra cost to our intelligence apparatus. We have learned how corrupt and worthless the United Nations is; surely that information alone is worth many thousands of American lives. And the internal perfidy of our major news organs is being exposed daily to an entirely new generation who had no idea and were all set to buy the bridge. Last but not least, we are starting, as Catherine says, to heal the wounds from Vietnam and to create a national narrative with which we can all live.
Through all of this we have continued scientific and technical breakthroughs at such a pace that the rest of the world can only sit back and stare in wonder, building a highway in Antarctica and sending dual robots to each side of Mars, our eyes raised to loftier heights as though the Muslim Islamofascists are scarcely worthy of our notice. As indeed they are.
Things looked much worse in 1864 and in 1942 than they do now. We survived and thrived, at least partly for the reasons outlined in Ralph Peters’s excellent essay linked above. We haven’t lost our nerve. We’re just still suffering from a political auto-immune disease, political lupus. But further attacks, like the prospect of hanging, will do wonders to clarify our collective minds.
I think that Knucklehead (and Sting) are right: moonbats go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one. We all have a duty, I believe, a duty to our country and a duty to our own survival, to start to calmly and persistently convert the moonbats, one wrong-headed idea at a time. When we ourselves are wrong we should admit it cheerfully and change our narrative accordingly. Unlike Muslims, we are in charge of our future–we have free will and God expects us to use it wisely–and we need not submit to those maleficent people and ideas we see all around us. We shall overcome.
Terrye
Why go after Bush on something that most people are not interested in
Actually, I was forgetting something. (I’m still forgetting it, sad to say . . . I’ve reached saturation point on political journalism.)
One part of the strategy here is to try to drive down Bush’s “honest” rating.
The point isn’t to convince people that he went missing for 3 months; probably most people believe that already.
The point is to convince people that he lied about it.
I remember reading another part of it . . . having to do with both sides being intensely focused on negative campaigning at this point.
I think it was in today’s WAPO. If I find it I’ll post.
Rick Ballard: When MFRs are used, they are filed in one’s desk. If something happens that might reflect badly on me, I would note on a memorandum for record, the SUBJECT line being: “incident in question” or “Bush flight physical,” the background of the incident, what I advised/did, and what the disposition of the case was. I would then file it the lower right drawer of my desk under the file title, MFRs (or Armageddon as some of my more descriptive colleague would do). After the principals of the contretemps left or rotated or you were preparing to leave, you would destroy those files. No one, to my knowledge, would ever keep those files.
Think of that with respect to the LtCol Killian thing. That these memos surfaced after 30 some odd years, would suggest that the author of these memos somehow knew that First Lieutenant Bush would, 30 years later, be involved in a presidential race. Come on!!! That doesnt pass the no shit test! On its face, that is evidence enough to reject these asinine claims. The only more foolish thing I have seen is Juan Williams suggestion is that even if these are forgeries, somehow the president should respond to the charges–No wonder penwil unleashed her fury on the UPS guy. You cant make this stuff up!
RogerA,
If an MRA was commonly referred to as a CYA memo perhaps the forger simply titled it based upon the slang reference?
Catherine,
In re Why? – We don’t have the internal poll information that McCauliffe has. We know the trajectory of the Kerry campaign and we know that the velocity is increasing but we don’t have any idea of how big the crater will be on impact. If DNC projections show a high probability of Kerry pulling less than 40% then the Dems will give up 10 Senate seats rather than the more likely 5. Kerry ain’t going up so Bush has to be pulled down.
If Terry shared that probability with Rather then Rather may see this as a worthwhile potential sacrifice. If the Dems lose 10 seats then Ted Kennedy will be parking in Bethesda. Panic can be lovely to watch.
Examining motives:
1) Someone wants to make money. Book sales? Celebrity? Re-Activate a dead career?
If these are the motives, then all this has little to do with Dems and Repubs. It has more to do with making a big splash and being in position to take advantage of the predictable reactions. What the perp may not have accounted for was the investigative capabilities of the bloggers. On this line of thought: look for players who would have benefited monetarily by a successful slam on Bush.
2) This election really is about ’08 and not ’04.
If these are the motives, then this is sabotage of Kerry’s campaign by those who would be set up for ’08. On this line of thought, the forgeries were expected to be discovered before the election, Rather would be bullet-proofed with experts so he could say it is not his fault, and more ‘revelations’ about the documents will leak over the next weeks.
3) This is set up to defuse the (previously) unstoppable SWBT Vets. In this scenario it was expected to be discovered that these are forgeries, but not necessary. Either way, the public and the MSM get tired of ’30 year old’ behaviors and no longer want to hear about it. It stops the downward slide in the polls of Kerry.
4) Stupid Dems.
‘nough said.
Catherine and Rick–my apologies for not responding directly to your question. NO: no one would use CYA as a subject line–they would cite the particular incident such as “flight physical” or “political pressure.”
Catherine:
Well he was young. When I was young I lied to my mother and said I was virgin when I got married. I think people will cut him some slack for that, just look at the pictures of him then. Kerry on the other hand looked older and far more arrogant.
But no doubt you are right, they want to say Bush lied…..
Speaking of lies, I heard that Hodges said CBS misled him about the memos and now he believes they are frauds. It seems he was under the impression they were handwritten.hummm… So much for that source…
and another one bites the dust.
Rick: someone with a superficial knowledge of military usage might say “CYA.” The Memorandum for Record (MFR) was what was actually used to cover one’s rear. That’s why I feel the (alleged) forger was really not very adept.
RogerA,
You’re apologizing for educating me? No apology is ever necessary, you tend to bring solid facts that sometimes buttress my suppositions and sometimes improve my knowledge. I always win, either way. Thank you.
Yes only the substance of the charges is important, not the probability that the charges a false to begin with. But Williams isn’t worried about the claims made by the SwiftVets because he don’t believe the charges, which are based on eyewitness testimony and backed up with sworn statements and signed affidavits. The double standards being applied is unbelievable.
Roger A:
YOu’re in my prayers.
GeoffG:
18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully–
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
The only question is whether under the circumstances, these statements are “in any matter within the jurisdiction of” a branch of federal government”.
My quick review of the Lexis annotations did not provide any helpful analogous situations.
Hmm.
Stupid Dems may sound a bit harsh.
By that I mean some particularly partisan Dems, not very bright, puts this thing together, and injects it into the Dem machine in an appropriate place.
No attempt at a blanket slam of Dems intended. (At least not on this count.)
As already noted, Hodges says he was lied to by CBS and he now thinks the memos are forgeries. And Staudt retired a year and a half before the date of the memo.
NYT has put up tomorrow’s article claiming that
This moves it to “he said, she said” status.
RogertA ó {{{Strong}}}
Based on my persusal of several issues of the Economist, I have no doubt that the editors of said publication prefer Kerry for president. The Economist is at least as liberal as Businessweek.
Isn’t one of the ways you tell whether a signature is forged is to look for “hesitancy” marks? With the purported document copied so many times, how did CBS’s expert determine it was the same signature with any certainty?
“Things looked much worse in 1864 and in 1942 than they do now”.
Sure, but in 1942 the whole free world (except Quebec) was mobilized for war. We were serious about fighting and serious about winning. After that infamous day there was nobody questioning the need for war. Too many people today think that it’s optional.
We were also willing to do whatever it took. I’m not saying that we need to flatten any cities at this juncture, but I don’t think we have the will to do it necessary. Where are the Bomber Harris’ and the Curtis LeMays? Where is our George S. Patton? Tommy Franks is a nice guy, and he might be an Eisenhower or Bradley, but where’s our Patton? And why are we still rotating officers like it’s peacetime? If Franks was good, he should have stayed, if not he should have been shit-canned.
“We haven’t lost our nerve. We’re just still suffering from a political auto-immune disease, political lupus. But further attacks, like the prospect of hanging, will do wonders to clarify our collective minds.”
I’m not so sure – unless those attacks are NBCW with casulties in the tens or hundreds of thousands. And think what that would do to the economy. 9/11 probably cost at least 12-18 months of growth (+/- 600 billion in lost growth). Had it not been for the Bush tax cuts we’d probably be short another 1.5 mil jobs.
I’m begining to think that most folks on the left are completely immune to mind clarification. They simply adapt events to their prejudices instead of vice versa (Bush caused 9/11; Bush made the terrorists mad; and Cheney wants to sail up the Shatt al Arab in the MV Haliburton and steal all the oil). There are way too many Fisks out there – willing to get beat up by angry Muslims because “we deserve it.”
When the hell are we acutally going to implement the Bush doctrine on Syria and Iran asses? How about finally letting Israel off the leash? How about admitting that Islam is not always a religion of peace?
OK – I admit I’m being a bit contration this evening. It’s partly a release of my worst fears, and partly a thought exercise to try to isolate our worst vulnerabilities.
When the hell are we acutally going to implement the Bush doctrine on Syria and Iran asses? How about finally letting Israel off the leash? How about admitting that Islam is not always a religion of peace?
Coming to a theater near you on November 3rd.
Catherine
Looking back at this thread, I realized that I didn’t thank you for the link to the military acronyms.
Thanks!
It is odd what can bring back childhood memories. That a list of military acronyms brings back days running around between the family housing units on a clear summer day, making up silly sentences, well … who would have thought?
Roger really has an outstanding blog with great posts, particularly this thread. Clearly CBS is culpable in this transparent nonsense and the switched-on bloggers should hold their heads high for exposing yet another MSM folly — even more so in the face of the ridiculous ‘pajamas’ comment from former CBS exec Jonathan Klein. CBS execs must be shouting a collective “DOH!” for not having read Bernie Goldberg’s books.
Kerry is toast — clear thinkers know he never should have been nominated because clear thinkers also know that indecisiveness and initiative don’t mix during perilous times. Sadly, Rather may survive this fiasco on the backs of the 30~35% or so of viewers that don’t care if he is a complete wad. But still, Brian Williams and Jennings must be feeling a few butterflies in their stomachs these days. Wolf? Well Wolf and his sad little counterparts at MSNBC would have to triple their viewers before they show up on the radar screen…
OK, I feel a little better now. At least I wasn’t the only one. What the deuce has happened to the Democrats? (OK, I”m a Democrat, but I no longer understand them.) I watched Robert Reich make an absolute fool of himself over this issue on FOX. I tend to think that Roger is right that “this cannot stand” because if it does it’ll be like an infected wound that’s closed prematurely. It’ll fester and eventually become deadly. Here’s what worries me:
Is this just plain old garden variety ignorance, or is it something more ominous? Is this the “horrible schizophrenia” that Qutb thinks his version of Islam can target effectively? Does he actually see a vulnerability that has escaped our attention?
The WaPo, at any rate, isn’t backing away just yet. Howard Kurtz writes in today’s issue (page A07):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12809-2004Sep10.html
The memos, described as having been written by Bush’s squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, indicate that Bush got special treatment as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and failed to carry out a superior’s order to undergo a physical exam. Several experts consulted by news organizations say the memos contain typographical and formatting features that suggest they were written on a computer or word processor rather than on an early 1970s government typewriter.
Rather said that CBS’s lead expert was Marcel Matley of San Francisco, a member of the National Association of Document Examiners who has taught, lectured and written about his field, testified in numerous trials, and consulted for government agencies. Matley said last night that a “60 Minutes” executive had asked him not to give interviews.
The Dallas Morning News cast fresh doubt on the documents by reporting last night that the officer named in one memo as exerting pressure to “sugarcoat” Bush’s military record was discharged a year and a half before the memo was written. The paper cited a military record showing that Col. Walter “Buck” Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972, while the memo cited by CBS as showing that Staudt was interfering with evaluations of Bush was dated Aug. 18, 1973.
(…)
Some CBS employees, who asked not to be identified while questioning their bosses’ actions, expressed concern that the network had issued only a terse statement Thursday, when the authenticity of the documents was first questioned and until yesterday had refused to name any of the experts it had consulted or provide an on-the-record spokesman. One staff member, who has examined the documents but did not work on the “60 Minutes” piece, saw potential problems with them: “There’s a lot of sentiment that we should do an internal investigation.”
“The first rule of public relations is to get all the bad news out right away,” said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University’s College of Communication. “It looks like CBS News has made some serious errors here, and if so, they should plead nolo contendere and not do the perp walk later.”
(…)
Matley, who told Rather last night that he knew the Bush documents would be professional “dynamite,” has been involved in high-profile cases, including a 1997 controversy over purported John F. Kennedy documents. After “60 Minutes” cast doubt on those documents, the man who unearthed them, Lawrence Cusack III, retained Matley in a suit against CBS that was rejected in court. Matley could not vouch for the documents’ authenticity.
One other note: The WaPo didn’t mention the statement that retired Gen. Hodges gave to ABC News, reprodudced on ABC’s “Noted Now” site:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html
HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian’s supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were “handwritten” and after CBS read him excerpts he said, “well if he wrote them that’s what he felt.”
Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70′s and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been “computer generated” and are a “fraud”.
To be fair to the WaPo, that piece of news came in very late last night, possibly after Kurtz’s story had been put to bed for today’s edition. That’s a practical problem with old media, as you see.
RogerA
Oh my. Hang in there.
Demosophist
No. I think Qutb misinterpreted us. Because Western society is free and can express itself openly, the natural tensions between ‘change’ and ‘not so fast let’s figure out if this is the right change to make first’ appear as a rift rather than dialog. Especially to someone who does not believe in free will and therefore could never understand the conversation.
I think the current situation, where our ‘factions’ seem almost violently opposed is a result of the increasing awareness that the world has changed and one side finds that during an important phase change in our history it is out of power. Having no control over the new forces one sees around them is terribly frightening. And I think it’s their fear that is driving the near madness.
It will pass.
I give it four years.
Though it might take longer.
OK, since we’re way OT and talking about such stuff, here’s one for y’all.
Most of us have heard or used something similar to, “That woman can talk the balls off a brass monkey!” and have no good idea where the phrase came from or what it means (it works nonetheless ;>).
Well, I’m here to larn y’all sumpin new today.
A “brass monkey” was the brass form secured to the deck of old warships. It was used to hold the first layer of cannonballs in place for those pyramid looking stacks. When conditions got cold enough sufficient ice would form to push even this first layer of cannonballs up off the brass monkey and the pyramid of cannonballs would collapse.
Thus we got the expression, “Cold enough to freeze the balls of a brass monkey!” which has been adapted in new and wonderful ways for a few centuries now.
BTW, somewhat back on topic, it occurred to me while reading through this thread that there is an element within the populace (and apparently it includes CBS, Dan Rather, Juan Williams, etc) that has bought into a society wide version of “jury nullification”. They don’t care whether “evidence” is real or not, and may even be willing to fabricate evidence. What is important is that the outcome of the “trial” be what they believe it should be. They aren’t interested in trying to follow the evidence to where it leads but rather deciding the desired outcome and then fitting the evidence and, if the evidence cannot be made to fit, then simply declaring the desired verdict despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
WichitaBoy (September 10, 2004 08:22 PM)
Have you (or any of the “lapsed liberals” here, including our esteemed host) any ideas about how we can convert the moonbats?
For the several I encounter, it appears we do not share a common language to even discuss the issues.