Chef Jim Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I watched 60 minutes tonight and Dan Rather interviewed the old lady who was the secretary to the supposed writer of the memos. She states that she did not type them, that there are several items in the memo that point to them being bogus but that "similar" memos were written. She is then given time to state her opinions on how she feels about Bush and his service in the National Guard. WTF!! This is really hard for me to digest...A top news agency reports on bogus documents but then says it's ok because there probably were real memos that said something similar. If that is sufficient proof for a story, how can we believe anything that we see reported on CBS! 33215[/snapback] We can't nor should we. And that pertains to all the networks now. Yes, Fox news included. The all lost credibility with me a LONG time ago.
SilverNRed Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I watched 60 minutes tonight and Dan Rather interviewed the old lady who was the secretary to the supposed writer of the memos. She states that she did not type them, that there are several items in the memo that point to them being bogus but that "similar" memos were written. She is then given time to state her opinions on how she feels about Bush and his service in the National Guard. WTF!! This is really hard for me to digest...A top news agency reports on bogus documents but then says it's ok because there probably were real memos that said something similar. If that is sufficient proof for a story, how can we believe anything that we see reported on CBS! 33215[/snapback] 60 Minutes has never let Killian's wife or son appear to talk about the memoes, what their father thought of Bush, what they think of Bush, or anything else. To Dan Rather, those people don't exist. I can't believe no one has pointed out that See-B.S. is using a dead man's good name to push their agenda. This is beyond disgusting.
AKC Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I watched 60 minutes tonight and Dan Rather interviewed the old lady who was the secretary to the supposed writer of the memos. She states that she did not type them, that there are several items in the memo that point to them being bogus but that "similar" memos were written. She is then given time to state her opinions on how she feels about Bush and his service in the National Guard. WTF!! This is really hard for me to digest...A top news agency reports on bogus documents but then says it's ok because there probably were real memos that said something similar. If that is sufficient proof for a story, how can we believe anything that we see reported on CBS! 33215[/snapback] I'm watching it right now- and it's almost like a movie plot. I believe Rather is truly melting down- a guy who is placed in a position to report the news, not make it, has been involved at the very least with presenting fabricated evidence and it's looking more and more as if he may have been involved with the fabrication itself. His inability to report the truth in this case should result in a landslide of emails to CBS demanding his removal. Their address is evening@cbsnews.com
Chef Jim Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 His inability to report the truth in this case should result in a landslide of emails to CBS demanding his removal. Their address is evening@cbsnews.com 33228[/snapback] Done.
KOKBILLS Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I'm watching it right now- and it's almost like a movie plot. I believe Rather is truly melting down- a guy who is placed in a position to report the news, not make it, has been involved at the very least with presenting fabricated evidence and it's looking more and more as if he may have been involved with the fabrication itself. His inability to report the truth in this case should result in a landslide of emails to CBS demanding his removal. Their address is evening@cbsnews.com 33228[/snapback] Well...I hope (but doubt) this will be lesson to the Left Media that when going after the President Of The United States, it's a good idea to get the facts straight, authenticated, checked, double checked, and then some. And if I may put on a non partisan hat for just a moment (damn this thing is uncomfortable ), I do truly believe that should go for ANY American President Republican or Dem. I really think when you're going after the Pres, and you get it wrong, you deserve to be fried... B)
GG Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I swear to God I almost screamed. We're in the bizarro world right now. Sullivan's response was something like: "It's journalism 101. Sources that are false cannot be cited!" Paula Zahn and the two other people in the universe who couldn't come to that conclusion themselves were enlightened. 33126[/snapback] Obviously she didn't take KtFaBD's brother's course at NYU (he was quoted again in WSJ today)
SactoBillFan Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Whats really funny is that the documents are suspicious, but their contents are, so to speak, easily believable. One looking for the truth over the "Viet Nam record" debate, might easily conclude that Kerry volunteered, served honorably, came home and spoke his conscience about the conflict. While Bush probably shammed his way through the era and never really formed an opinion on the matter. B)
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Whats really funny is that the documents are suspicious, but their contents are, so to speak, easily believable. One looking for the truth over the "Viet Nam record" debate, might easily conclude that Kerry volunteered, served honorably, came home and spoke his conscience about the conflict. While Bush probably shammed his way through the era and never really formed an opinion on the matter. B) 33278[/snapback] Especially if you have a lefty partisan view of it...
KurtGodel77 Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Stuff like this is why people are losing trust in the media. In fact, television is losing young people in general: the average television viewer is over the age of 50.
sfladave Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 I'm watching it right now- and it's almost like a movie plot. I believe Rather is truly melting down- a guy who is placed in a position to report the news, not make it, has been involved at the very least with presenting fabricated evidence and it's looking more and more as if he may have been involved with the fabrication itself. His inability to report the truth in this case should result in a landslide of emails to CBS demanding his removal. Their address is evening@cbsnews.com 33228[/snapback] Done.
Fashionformillenium Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I felt Wes Clarke didn't get enough attention in the media. Now we're really getting out of hand.
SactoBillFan Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Especially if you have a lefty partisan view of it... 33304[/snapback] Partially, the opinion is partisan. Engage in the facts and enlighten me on what you believe to be true on the matter. B)
Alaska Darin Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Partially, the opinion is partisan. Engage in the facts and enlighten me on what you believe to be true on the matter. B) 34516[/snapback] Don't know. Don't care. If he was a bad Guardsman, it was up to his superiors at the time to have done something about it. They didn't and he has an honorable discharge. Next subject. I really don't care what happened 30 years ago - for either of these guys (I ain't voting for them anyway).
SactoBillFan Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Don't know. Don't care. If he was a bad Guardsman, it was up to his superiors at the time to have done something about it. They didn't and he has an honorable discharge. Next subject. I really don't care what happened 30 years ago - for either of these guys (I ain't voting for them anyway). 34529[/snapback] And truthfully how did Kerry fare? I guess you're right though, it's important to ignore history. B)
Alaska Darin Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 And truthfully how did Kerry fare? I guess you're right though, it's important to ignore history. B) 34547[/snapback] I don't care. He's not running to make sure a boat has gas in it. His Senate record is a helluva lot more germain to the current situation. Not surprisingly, he's not highlighting that. I get so confused when you liberals are whining. Is having a service record really important, since John Kerry has 4 months of one, or is it irrelevant since Bill Clinton didn't have any at all (it sure wasn't in each of his elections)?
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Whats really funny is that the documents are suspicious, but their contents are, so to speak, easily believable. One looking for the truth over the "Viet Nam record" debate, might easily conclude that Kerry volunteered, served honorably, came home and spoke his conscience about the conflict. While Bush probably shammed his way through the era and never really formed an opinion on the matter. B) 33278[/snapback] Link?
Recommended Posts