CBS

[rextorres]

Atrocities said:

I don't know about this. I don't listen to talk radio.

It's not on the Radio The MRG posted it on their website. Under "About Media Research Center" half way down the page

http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp

So you don't have to listen to talk Radio you can read it on their site.

Atrocities said:

Adobe was primarily responsible for creating the Times Roman font for word processing. They compared the fonts to those of current word processors and such. They concluded that these documents were most likely made with a current day word processor. Read this MSNBC Artilce

Here's a good article that refutes all the people that says the memos could not have been real because they were made in windows.

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=8&id=5542

Atrocities said:


I am sorry, but I don't follow you?? .

Like I said the memos are irrevalent - to the fact that Bush got special treatment to get into the National Guard and then couldn't even fulfill his duty their and went AWOL.

Atrocities said:

Actualy the people who are crucifying him are not the RNC, but the Swift Boat Vets. http://www.swiftvets.com/ From what I have seen, the Republicans are the ones who are being attacked by the DNC over Bush's record.

Did you watch the Rebublican Convention? It was pure vitriol against Kerry. Some speakers even implied Kerry was a coward.

Atrocities said:

John Kerry's record is not complete and available for inspection. I don't know if Bushes record is or is not.

Umm Kerry's is
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0422c.html - These are ALL of the public records anyone that tells you otherwise is wrong.

where's Bush's?

[Will]

Richard Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
James Woolsey
Richard Armitage

All have been outspoken proponents of going to war with Iraq since Sept. 11, 2001, all believe in the "Clash of Civilizations" theory, where the Western nations will be at war with Islamic nations in a way similar to, or more violent than, the Cold War. And, with the exception of Mr. Armitage, all have never had any military experience. While this doesn't disqualify them from "running the country", their influence on strictly military matters is too great; I would much rather have people who have military service -- or even better, been in a war -- determining whether we should send kids into a warzone. These guys aren't calling for Special Forces to take care of things, they want massive amounts of ground forces, with only the most basic of training, to take control of everything. This is just asking for trouble, as we have seen already with incidents throughout Iraq.

So, while military experience does not in itself disqualify someone from leading the country, IMHO, it does when the person without experience is basing their platform on what they're going to use the military for. I want someone who has the ability for some empathy for my friends who are being sent to possibly die in the Middle East, and I want someone with some empathy for the common soldier controlling the possibility of a draft. Bush, and the people advising him, has neither.

[Atrocities]

Thanks guys. This is good information. I don't know if I would trust Morons.org though.

Any thanks for responding.

[Atrocities]

Well now, looks like the proof that they were fake was at Kinkos in Texas. LOL - so ends Rathergate.

[Will]

Link? I'm searching for it on google, and all I'm seeing is that the memos were faxed to CBS from a Kinkos in Texas... hardly proof that they're fake. Proof that they are fake would be getting the computer that the memos were alegedly created with, and seeing the exact files. It's very likely that the memos could be faxed photocopies of originals (since most stories seem to indicate originals were destroyed), and I somehow doubt that "document experts" can determine whether something was made in the 1970s with a typewriter or in 2000s with a computer after going through at least two reproductions like that (scan/copy, then scan/fax). It doesn't really help that the only comments coming from the White House or the President are along the lines of "look where they came from, then you'll understand". Nobody denying the content, nobody saying that Bush was responsible and completed all his duties without help from more powerful individuals to modify his record. It almost seems like they're using the whole thing as a political tool to let the crazy ultra-right wing pundit types throw out the typical accusations of a "vast left-wing conspiracy" and the "Liberal Media". Which pretty much only accomplishes polarizing the country even more than it already is, and also has the side effect of being very good for Bush. When the opinion on a national level is as close to split as it can possibly be, the incumbent is almost always going to win.

Bleh.

[Atrocities]

You got me.... I miss read the article - Sunday Sept 19th Columbian. (Page A10 Second collum of the news story "The Lessons Of Rathergate.") I apologize for the confussion.

Eventually the Old Media took another look and, using news-gathering expertise unavailable to bloggers, chased the story all the way to a Kinko's in Texas.

From MSNBC - (Cleared things up.)

Strong, the former Guard officer, said Last week that when Rather showed him the documents, they contained a header showing they had been faxed to the network from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene.

Virtually every document specialist and viable news source, except CBS, are calling the memo's "Modern Day Forgeries."

"I know Dan Rather is right," Marian Carr Knox, a former secretary in Bush's Guard unit, recalled saying. The neighbor said she should do something about it. So she called a Houston newspaper, Knox told CBS, but did not get a call back. Dallas Morning News reporter Pete Slover soon tracked down Knox and showed her copies of the Killian memos.

"These are not real," declared Knox, who said she handled Killian's memos. "They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him."

Now I am not questioning wether or not Bush received favorable treatment while in the TexANG, to think otherwise is just silly, what I am questioning are the memo's.

I have read and according to FOX, the rumor mill is ablaze that these memo's were dilibrately made to discredit CBS news and Dan Rather. I am sorry, but I find that laughable to say the least. CBS thought they had a smoking gun, it turned out it was not. They wanted to save face in the intensifying light of the truth, and they hurt their crediblity. These things happen. Remember the exploding chevy trucks that Date Line faked?

I have no doubts that CBS honestly felt that the memo's were real, or at least had a more likely than not that they are real mentality toward them with the view that if they were not authentic, that it would be up to the white house to prove it, and that was a huge mistake given all the Blogs out there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039473/
And an article in the Sunday Columbian ( http://www.columbian.com/ ) - by Beth Gillin.

And as much as I hate the thought, I feel Kerry has this election in the bag. (Thanks to brillant election tactics and under handed tactics and the support of the liberal left main stream media.)

[Will]

Ok, I couldn't find the article in the Columbian, but the MSNBC article clarified a few things. After reading through it, I would say that the inconsistencies that were brought up are not covered by duplication, and it is probable that the memos are partially or entirely fake (ie, parts could be from actual memos, other parts "reconstructed" in a computer). However, that doesn't mean that the content was false, as a lot of people are trying to claim; "if pigs fly, then bacon comes from pigs". Conclusion can be (and in the example, is) true regardless of the premise.

So, journalists are now focusing on the accusations made by the memos, rather than the memos themselves, which should have been the focus all along. The forgery stuff is secondary, and only served as a distraction; in the end, it is irrelevent as long as it is clear that favourable treatment was given. Some of the things disputed in the documents, like the Col. that was supposedly putting pressure to gloss over negative details being hon. discharged a year earlier, don't even seem like valid arguements to me. If he's retired, he can still influence things that happen in the ranks, it's not like retirement means he cuts himself off from all ties to the Guard. And so on...

I guess we'll see as the week goes on how this affects things, but it looks like a (after a fashion) Bush supporter is starting to be convinced of a Kerry victory, and a (after a fashion) Kerry supporter is convinced of a Bush re-election... things are going to be confusing for a while.

This strict two-party business is starting to get to me even more now though. Things are so polarized, and there doesn't seem much hope of things getting better, that a civil war and/or hostile takeover to a single party system almost seems plausible in 25 years. Scary.

[Atrocities]

However, that doesn't mean that the content was false

I Agree.

[tesco samoa]

Question. Why does what happened in the early 70's matter. Is it just to attempt to swing the middle class vote ? When I mentioned this stuff a few years ago. It was because I was so pissed off by that mission accomplished. And I tied it in with the cutting of benifits for veterns.

Is this a panic measure by the Dem's because they feel they are lossing the election ?

I just want to know why this is so important when there are far more important things to talk about in USA election.

[Will]

It's a character thing. In the past, Bush has (alegedly, but few actually doubt it) abused position and power to get away with things other people couldn't. And (alegedly) brag about it. Fast forward thirty years later, and he's doing pretty much the same thing with the Presidency. So, we are led to conclude, if it has happened before in the past, and it has happened recently, it is then reasonably safe to assume that the same abuses (erosion of civil liberties, tying "terrorism" into anything and everything, unilateral pre-emptive invasion for dubious reasons at high cost to average citizens, almost no crackdowns on corporate scandals, the list goes on...) and bragging ("Mission Accomplished" photo-op on carrier, the circus that was made around the capture of Saddam and the invasion of Iraq as a whole, "We're fighting evil!", and so on) will continue to happen in the future. With just what's happened recently, there's still a strong arguement to vote someone else. By showing a pattern of the same behaviour, they hopefully lock in that arguement so as to be irrefutable except by those blinded by partisan dogma. Meaning those people that think that all that stuff Bush did is great (I know they exist, I've met some).

What actually seems to be happening is that people end up hating one candidate and merely disliking the other. Both candidates' attempts to lift up their own image is on shakey ground, too, so it doesn't look like the hate/dislike combo is going to change in 43 days. And in the absence of any viable alternative, most people are going to vote for dislike just so hate doesn't get in.