Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Stupid RatherFollow

#1 Sep 20 2004 at 3:34 PM Rating: Default
I knew those documents were fake. Silly CBS.
#2 Sep 20 2004 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Good for you.

Now, if you could only prove what those fake documents were saying was fake too.

What's that? You can't?

I see.
#3 Sep 20 2004 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
****
7,821 posts
CBS Says Was Misled About Bush Documents

NEW YORK - CBS apologized Monday and said it was misled about the authenticity of documents used to support a "60 Minutes" story that questioned President Bush's Vietnam War-era National Guard service, after several experts denounced them as fakes.

"We should not have used them," CBS News President Andrew Heyward said. "That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

CBS also said it was commissioning an independent panel to review the incident, and would announce the name of the participants shortly.

The White House said the affair raises questions about the connections between CBS's source and Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign.

CBS's concession was a major blow to the credibility of the news organization and anchor Dan Rather, who reported the story and issued his own apology Monday.

"We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry," he said. "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."

Almost immediately after the Sept. 8 story aired, document experts questioned memos purportedly written by Bush's late squadron leader, saying they appeared to have been created on a computer and not a typewriter that was in use during the 1970s.

CBS strongly defended its story, and it wasn't until a week later _ after the military leader's former secretary said she believed the memos were fake _ did the news division admit they were questionable.

Even then, Rather said no one had disputed the story's premise: that the future president had pulled strings to get a relatively cushy National Guard assignment and failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

Rather this weekend interviewed Bill Burkett, a retired Texas National Guard official who has been mentioned as a possible source for the documents. His interview was to be broadcast on "CBS Evening News" on Monday.

CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.

The Associated Press could not immediately reach Burkett for comment.

Rather said he would not have gone ahead with the story Burkett admitted that the documents were not authentic.

"That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where _ if I knew then what I know now _ I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question," he said.

"Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully," he added.

The documents were said to have been written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, indicating he was being pressured to "sugarcoat" the performance ratings of a young Bush, then the son of a Texas congressman, and that Bush failed to follow orders to take a physical. Killian died in 1984.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was told about the CBS statement as he flew to Derry, N.H.

"CBS is now for the first time publicly acknowledging that the documents were likely forged and they came from a discredited source," McClellan said. "There are a number of serious questions that remain unanswered and they need to be answered. Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact is not an unimpeachable source as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited and so this raises a lot of questions. There were media reports about Mr. Burkett having senior level contacts with the Kerry campaign."

For "60 Minutes," it's the biggest ethical mess since the 1995 incident captured in the movie, "The Insider," which depicted the newsmagazine caving to pressure from CBS lawyers and not airing a whistleblowing report from an ex-tobacco executive.

The call for an independent review was also reminiscent of CNN's "Tailwind" scandal in 1998. The cable network retracted a story that the U.S. military had used nerve gas in Laos during the Vietnam war.


Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
#4 Sep 20 2004 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Didn't think I had to state the obvious. But for people like you I see that Nashua was nice enough to infrom you of it. Maybe you should watch the news Prickled!ck and you'll know what I was referring to.

Edited, Mon Sep 20 17:35:08 2004 by Elsahn
#5 Sep 20 2004 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Didn't think I had to state the obvious. But for people like you I see that Nashua was nice enough to infrom you of it. Maybe you should watch the news Prickled!ck and you'll know what I was referring to.


Yeah, thanks for the new flash. I KNEW that already.

How is what I said affected at all by that?

The preferential treatment, his failure to show....these things ARE true.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Bush team paid this weirdo to make the documents just to discredit them and ignore the fact that Bush is chicken-hearted piece o' ****.

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you keep my "Prickledick" out of your mouth....ummkay?
#6 Sep 20 2004 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Why such vulgarness little man? You should save it for the Asylum ^^
#7 Sep 20 2004 at 4:57 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,311 posts
So no response to the fact that though the memo is a fake, the information therein is not?
#8 Sep 20 2004 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#9 Sep 20 2004 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Elsahn and Ghana are working hard to be the new Varus's.

Ignore Elsahn and move on, he is a tool with a reading comprehension rate that speaks poorly for the American education system.

Oh and GFY Elsahn.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#10 Sep 20 2004 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Oh yea... using such big words there sattva. Please enlighten us on what this reading comprehension of mine might be. I know what yours could be, but I'd hate to put you and my 4 yr old niece in the same sentence as far as brains go, cause I know shes a bit smarter than you. But if this is the path you choose to go down, then let it be known you will lose.

And as to the new Varu? Don't know him , don't care to. Obviously you're trying to compare to me to an idiot. But why don't you just use yourself as the example. Maybe that would make me just look better.... well then yeah better stick with Varu.

And to trickybeck.... i say to thee nay. I did not say that. I said Pricklyd!ck. Again by FCC rules(please read them you'll learn something) you can use f*ck, @$$ on tv with it being ok. So it works with d!ck as well. I'm glad you thought you were right though. Its good to prove dumb people right. Thanks for making my day a wee bit better.

Edited, Mon Sep 20 18:19:38 2004 by Elsahn

Edited, Mon Sep 20 18:20:42 2004 by Elsahn
#11 Sep 20 2004 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Well, now you're just not making any sense at all.

Do us a favor. Take a journey to the mountains, and meet with the wise man at the peak. Ask him to teach you the secret of trolling. Meditate on it for a few months, hone your skills, then come back and impress us with your newfound mastery of the art of trolling.


#12 Sep 20 2004 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Had the title to this thread been rather stupid, it would have wona pulitzer prize. oh well.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#13 Sep 20 2004 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Pickleprice wrote:
Good for you.

Now, if you could only prove what those fake documents were saying was fake too.

What's that? You can't?

I see.


To which you reply

Quote:
Maybe you should watch the news Prickled!ck and you'll know what I was referring to.



If you cannot see how this shows your poor comprehension abilities then you truly are slow.


____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#14 Sep 20 2004 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
So no response to the fact that though the memo is a fake, the information therein is not?


What response do you expect though? Honestly. I can post day after day insisting that space aliens are secretly controlling our brains with their space rays from orbiting craft, and you can't disprove it, now can you?!

But after the umpteenth time that I've produced bogus and falsified "proof" that I'm right, you might just start to disbelieve me.

Same thing here. It's easy for people to keep insisting that's what happened, but if all you have is a firm belief, that's not going to go very far.


Did Bush "use connections" to get a cushy Guard assignment? It's certainly *possible*. But he probably didn't have to though. Think it through. Sons of Congresssmen/Ambassadors don't generally get sent to the front lines unless they specifically ask to. It's just a headache for the military to deal with. Especially in Vietnam where a valuable prisoner like that would be used. Doubly so in the 70-72 time frame where the war was obviously winding down, and there was a glut of pilots sitting around idle anyway, and there was *zero* reason to put a potentially valuable POW in the hands of the NVA for use as a bagaining chip if you don't have to. Triply so since Bush was clearly not planing on re-enlisting and was just serving out his time.


While I'm sure that Bush's father's position was part of the reason he was stationed where he was, I doubt very much that he or his father actually pulled any strings or pushed any buttons to get that station for him. I just don't see how they would have needed to. If the worst you can say is that Bush didn't actively seek out danger in the war, then I have no problems accepting that. He's publicly said that many times. He had no intention to be a "war hero". He was required to serve, and so he served. It's not like he ran away to Canada to avoid the draft or anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Sep 20 2004 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
CBS is backpeddling as fast as they can due to the fallout of lost credibility. Sadly, Dan Rather has a track record of this type of unsubstantiated crap and yet they keep him on as anchor. Firing him would be a major step in restoring their reputation as the network of Walter Cronkite and fair and responsible news reporting.

Totem
#16 Sep 20 2004 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
CBS is backpeddling as fast as they can due to the fallout of lost credibility. Sadly, Dan Rather has a track record of this type of unsubstantiated crap and yet they keep him on as anchor. Firing him would be a major step in restoring their reputation as the network of Walter Cronkite and fair and responsible news reporting.

Totem
#17 Sep 20 2004 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
CBS is backpeddling as fast as they can due to the fallout of lost credibility. Sadly, Dan Rather has a track record of this type of unsubstantiated crap and yet they keep him on as anchor. Firing him would be a major step in restoring their reputation as the network of Walter Cronkite and fair and responsible news reporting.

Totem
#18 Sep 20 2004 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
CBS is backpeddling as fast as they can due to the fallout of lost credibility. Sadly, Dan Rather has a track record of this type of unsubstantiated crap and yet they keep him on as anchor. Firing him would be a major step in restoring their reputation as the network of Walter Cronkite and fair and responsible news reporting.

Totem
#19 Sep 20 2004 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
CBS is backpeddling as fast as they can due to the fallout of lost credibility. Sadly, Dan Rather has a track record of this type of unsubstantiated crap and yet they keep him on as anchor. Firing him would be a major step in restoring their reputation as the network of Walter Cronkite and fair and responsible news reporting.

Totem
#20 Sep 20 2004 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Bah. Dumb server.

Totem

Edited, Mon Sep 20 19:20:38 2004 by Totem
#21 Sep 20 2004 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
Did Bush "use connections" to get a cushy Guard assignment? It's certainly *possible*. But he probably didn't have to though. Think it through. Sons of Congresssmen/Ambassadors don't generally get sent to the front lines unless they specifically ask to. It's just a headache for the military to deal with. Especially in Vietnam where a valuable prisoner like that would be used. Doubly so in the 70-72 time frame where the war was obviously winding down, and there was a glut of pilots sitting around idle anyway, and there was *zero* reason to put a potentially valuable POW in the hands of the NVA for use as a bagaining chip if you don't have to. Triply so since Bush was clearly not planing on re-enlisting and was just serving out his time.



Jesus. You can rationalize anything, can't you?


#22 Sep 20 2004 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
Quote:
Did Bush "use connections" to get a cushy Guard assignment? It's certainly *possible*. But he probably didn't have to though. Think it through. Sons of Congresssmen/Ambassadors don't generally get sent to the front lines unless they specifically ask to. It's just a headache for the military to deal with. Especially in Vietnam where a valuable prisoner like that would be used. Doubly so in the 70-72 time frame where the war was obviously winding down, and there was a glut of pilots sitting around idle anyway, and there was *zero* reason to put a potentially valuable POW in the hands of the NVA for use as a bagaining chip if you don't have to. Triply so since Bush was clearly not planing on re-enlisting and was just serving out his time.



Jesus. You can rationalize anything, can't you?



Rationalize what? I'm serious here. What *exact* thing do you believe Bush did wrong, and why is it wrong? Other then vague accusations and innuendo, I've not heard anything concrete here.


Exactly when did it become the norm in this country to assume wrongdoing in the absense of "proof" to the contrary? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around...


At least rationalization has the world "rational" in it. What's your excuse?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Sep 20 2004 at 6:38 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
The problem is that both sides are using circular arguments to try to back there side up.

The facts are most likely this. The documents were fake, CBS had a major ***** up and are gonna get nailed to the wall for it. Bush probably used family wealth and influence to keep out of 'Nam but who can blame him. It wasnt and is still is not a crime.

If he went AWOL and refused drug tests that might be a blow for him but so far there are no hard facts that can attest to that and not be argued against. Not that the Bush Administration hasnt talkedd there way over facts before but that is not the case right now.

____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#24 Sep 20 2004 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

But after the umpteenth time that I've produced bogus and falsified "proof" that I'm right, you might just start to disbelieve me.


Does the fact that Bush hasn't ever denied recieving favorable treatment or really anything else bother you at all?

Just wondering.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#25 Sep 20 2004 at 6:50 PM Rating: Decent
What I find rather interesting is that Pickle is leading the charge on the Bush didnt do his requisite time in the guard and shirked responsibility. Now I obviously dont know you Pickle but you strike me as the kind of guy that were draft reinstated you would be at the head of the line lighter at the ready wanting to be the first to burn his draft card. Am I wrong about that? Am I totally off base? If I am correct then who the **** are you to criticise anyone else's service. No offense but if you are not willing to serve your country then how can you inturn criticise someone else who was at least willing to join the armed services. Regardless of how much preferential treatment he may or may not have received? He did more than you did he not?
#26 Sep 20 2004 at 6:57 PM Rating: Default
bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Prick got 0wn3d.


*Breath*


bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Prick got 0wn3d.

sad thing is, is that I didn't copy and paste that. i actually have the time to sit here and type it out. =D
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 226 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (226)