Dan Rather / CBS using forged Bush related National Guard documents?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tigers2B1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the authenticity of documents related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, which were reported by CBS' 60 Minutes. Participants explore the possibility that these documents may be forgeries, the implications of such forgeries, and the potential connections to political campaigns, particularly that of John Kerry. The conversation includes technical analysis of the documents' formatting and the credibility of CBS's reporting.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the origin of the documents and speculate on a possible connection to the Kerry campaign, suggesting that if such a link exists, it could have significant political repercussions.
  • Concerns are raised about the credibility of CBS's reporting, particularly regarding their sourcing of the documents and the methods used to authenticate them.
  • Technical critiques highlight that the documents appear to use modern typographic features, such as proportional typefaces and kerning, which were not available on typewriters in the early 1970s, leading some to conclude they are likely forgeries.
  • Participants express skepticism about the motivations behind the documents' creation, with some attributing the act to individuals associated with the Kerry campaign or their supporters, while others argue that there is no evidence to directly implicate Kerry.
  • A later reply emphasizes that CBS's claims about the documents' authenticity have shifted, raising further doubts about their investigative practices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the authenticity of the documents or the implications of their potential forgery. Multiple competing views remain regarding the source of the documents and the credibility of CBS's reporting.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved questions about the documents' origins, the definitions of authenticity used by CBS, and the lack of direct evidence linking the documents to any political campaign.

  • #61
GENIERE said:
According to a Washington Post (Dobbs) reporter today… the documents were faxed from “Kinkos” in Abilene, TX, 20 miles from the residence of Bill Burkett. Burkett left the Guards in 1998 and filed a lawsuit against them, but lost the suit. Since then he has been hospitalized for depression and has been a Bush and Guard “basher” ever since
That's an interesting twist. Probably unprovable, but interesting nonetheless.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Another Coinkydink

http://www.1tex.net/demo/bcdw.htm

The speaker for our meeting on Monday, January 5th, will be Lavena Cheek, Taylor Country Tax Assessor Collector. Lavena will give a short talk on how we at the grassroots level can revitalize the Democratic Party in a positive manner.
The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at Kinko's on Danville just north of Buffalo Gap road in their meeting room. There are soda machines, etc. You're welcome to bring other refreshments if you like.

The room will cost us $5.00 per hour and we'll be requesting donations of $1.00 to help defray the cost. Any amount over the room cost will go into the club's general fund.

Please attend and bring a friend! And, think about clearing your schedule the weekend of February 20th for the TDW state convention in Austin! We'll have more information on that at the meeting!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Here is Limbaugh's admission. What is so laughable about it?

"You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life. So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication. Immediately following this broadcast I will check myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold that this highly addictive medication has on me."

I would accept something along those lines from Dan Rather. We're not going to get it.
 
  • #64
JohnDubYa said:
Here is Limbaugh's admission. What is so laughable about it?

"You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life. So I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication. Immediately following this broadcast I will check myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days to once and for all break the hold that this highly addictive medication has on me."

I would accept something along those lines from Dan Rather. We're not going to get it.

The quote from Rush was unnecessary. We are now discussing Dan Rather and I agree entirely with your last line, on both counts. Rush is another topic altogether.

"...I will check myself into a treatment center for the next 30 days..." How does Rush determine how long his treatment will take? I have been in a twelve step program, and the very audacity of this man to tell us that he is being honest when he is determining his treatment program, length of stay...etc...what a hypocrite and phony... for Limbaugh it never worked for me. For Rather...honestly I can't stand that guy anyway. I think I finally tuned out from him during the Egypt Air 880 air crash... long story, not worth the time and effort to type.
 
  • #65
JohnDubYa said:
Here is Limbaugh's admission. What is so laughable about it?

Try, everything. It was more of a dodge from the law and a desperate attempt to save his career than it was a true admission.
 
  • #66
Well, CBS (Dan Rather) apologized, but stopped short of a retraction.
HERE it is:
We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry...

...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...

...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...
I am surprised that he even said that much.
 
  • #67
russ_watters said:
Well, CBS (Dan Rather) apologized, but stopped short of a retraction.
HERE it is: I am surprised that he even said that much.

It is a point of irony among many in this campaign that Dan Rather apologizes for documents that are in question but the information within them is said to be accurate. In a perfect world we might expect Bush to follow suit about Iraq...or the Swift Boat boys to follow suit about their own treachery. Incredibly one sided, this campaign.
 
  • #68
It is a point of irony among many in this campaign that Dan Rather apologizes for documents that are in question but the information within them is said to be accurate. In a perfect world we might expect Bush to follow suit about Iraq...or the Swift Boat boys to follow suit about their own treachery. Incredibly one sided, this campaign.

One side has pay for their messages on their own. The other side gets Dan Rather and The Today Show to air theirs.
 
  • #69
JohnDubYa said:
One side has pay for their messages on their own. The other side gets Dan Rather and The Today Show to air theirs.

So, we have degrees of right and wrong then? Then you suggest that accountability is entirely a matter of political expediency?

Let's both assume for the moment that Rather and CBS acted on their own sans involvement by the Kerry camp, and that Swift-Boat did the same on their side. Is not wrong, wrong? Or is wrong sort of wrong so long as it supports an inflexible point of view?
 
  • #70
FaverWillets said:
Let's both assume for the moment that Rather and CBS acted on their own sans involvement by the Kerry camp, and that Swift-Boat did the same on their side. Is not wrong, wrong? Or is wrong sort of wrong so long as it supports an inflexible point of view?
If each entity (CBS and SBV) acted on its own not in cahoots with either campaign, why should either campaign comment on either issue? Or are you suggesting in your last post that CBS is part of the Kerry campaign, so an apology by CBS should be considered an apology by Kerry and the Bush campaign should follow suit? Since I doubt you really mean to say that, the comparison is specious.

In any case, the Iraq info is a separate issue entirely.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
russ_watters said:
If each entity (CBS and SBV) acted on its own not in cahoots with either campaign, why should either campaign comment on either issue? Or are you suggesting in your last post that CBS is part of the Kerry campaign, so an apology by CBS should be considered an apology by Kerry and the Bush campaign should follow suit? Since I doubt you really mean to say that, the comparison is specious.

In any case, the Iraq info is a separate issue entirely.



It was DubYa, by this unintelligible response that triggered mine: "One side has pay for their messages on their own. The other side gets Dan Rather and The Today Show to air theirs" He made this distinction, not me.

How by any stretch of the imagination did you make such a leap, Russ?

How can the comparison be specious when it has been proven that Bush/Powell presented forged documents to the UN in support of pre emptive war with Iraq. More than a thousand of our military have now died over this center piece of lies and deceit. Rather came clean even though witnesses confirm the inform within them is correct. I am amazed at how inflexible you guys are when presented with the truth about your chosen candidate.
 
  • #72
FaverWillets said:
It was DubYa, by this unintelligible response that triggered mine: "One side has pay for their messages on their own. The other side gets Dan Rather and The Today Show to air theirs" He made this distinction, not me.
Fair enough, though I thought JD's point was pretty clear. What part did you not understand?

In any case, I consider the media biased and unafraid to show it, but I would never say they are actually part of the Kerry campaign (nor, would I expect, JD would). Would you?
How by any stretch of the imagination did you make such a leap, Russ?
Well, you said:
It is a point of irony among many in this campaign that Dan Rather apologizes for documents that are in question...

...Incredibly one sided, this campaign.
which implies that they are a part of the campaign (for Kerry) and that CBS coming clean is equivalent to the Kerry campaign coming clean. Obviously, the SBV are part of the campaign - are you implying that CBS is as well?
How can the comparison be specious when it has been proven that Bush/Powell presented forged documents to the UN in support of pre emptive war with Iraq...
I said the Iraq issue is irrelevant, its the other part that's in question: CBS vs the SBV - the the speciousness of the comparison you made depends on if you think CBS is part of the Kerry campaign. If you think CBS is a part of the Kerry campaign, then we have other issues here...
 
Last edited:
  • #73
russ_watters said:
Fair enough, though I thought JD's point was pretty clear. What part did you not understand?

In any case, I consider the media biased and unafraid to show it, but I would never say they are actually part of the Kerry campaign (nor, would I expect, JD would). Would you? Well, you said: which implies that they are a part of the campaign (for Kerry) and that CBS coming clean is equivalent to the Kerry campaign coming clean. Obviously, the SBV are part of the campaign - are you implying that CBS is as well? I said the Iraq issue is irrelevant, its the other part that's in question: CBS vs the SBV - the the speciousness of the comparison you made depends on if you think CBS is part of the Kerry campaign. If you think CBS is a part of the Kerry campaign, then we have other issues here...

DubYa made the implication that the Kerry camp got Rather and Today Show to do his dirty work. How did this get so messed up. I answered that we should assume that neither Bush nor Kerry had anything to do with either issue. On that assumption we should then look at what went down: Rather apologized. SBV has never come clean about their lies and deceit. Fair enough. I have to get to work... this is informative and entertaining to an extent, but I have to earn the bread now. Thank you both for your time and inputs, even if we clearly disagree.
 
  • #74
So, we have degrees of right and wrong then? Then you suggest that accountability is entirely a matter of political expediency?

You were talking about a perfect world. In a perfect world, the three major news networks wouldn't be siding with one side of the political debate. So while Kitty Kelly gets free exposure on The Today Show and Dan Rather presents forged documents, the Swift Boat Veterans have to pay to have their messages delivered.

If Kitty Kelly, given her past idiocies, had written the book on John Kerry, she would never have landed on The Today Show -- she would have had to buy air time out of her own pocket. So you are right; we don't live in a perfect world.
 
  • #75
FaverWillets said:
DubYa made the implication that the Kerry camp got Rather and Today Show to do his dirty work.
No, I don't think JD implied that. The mainstream media is left leaning - Kerry didn't have to get them to do anything. They do it on their own.
I answered that we should assume that neither Bush nor Kerry had anything to do with either issue.
Ok, good...
On that assumption we should then look at what went down: Rather apologized. SBV has never come clean about their lies and deceit.
Ok, but that still assumes an equality between CBS and the SBV that doesn't (and shouldn't) exist. Media is supposed to be unbiased. You should assume that the SBV is biased.

IMO, the SBV didn't lie, but I'll certainly agree they were deceitful. But that's marketing. That's what you get from a biased marketing campaign with an adjenda. And there is a parallel on the Left: MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. Neither will ever come clean about their deceptions - and you shouldn't expect them to.

The fact that you don't seem to want to separate a supposedly unbiased observer from one that is obviously a biased and active part of the campaign is disturbing to me.
 
  • #76
I think the Left's howling about the SBV campaign is hilarious, given their defending of Michael Moore. Freedom of speech, right?
 
  • #77
Burkett has already indicated he was "the source" of these documents to CBS BUT claims that he received them from another source where, he claims, he made a promise of confidentiality. Smell a rat? – just wait to you read what else is involved here. No comment needed. Just read.

CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard….

…Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election….

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20-cbs-documents_x.htm
 
  • #78
russ_watters said:
The mainstream media is left leaning - Kerry didn't have to get them to do anything. They do it on their own.
Looks like I may have to take this one back. If there is collusion, that's real bad for Kerry and CBS. More tomorrow...
I think the Left's howling about the SBV campaign is hilarious, given their defending of Michael Moore. Freedom of speech, right?
And don't forget Limbaugh. He's so offensive that they complain about him on the House floor. But MoveOn.org and Moore are just unbiased, astute observers and reporters (like CBS :rolleyes: ). Heck, they even keep a straight face when saying that "F 9/11" is a "documentary." Riiiiight.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
According to the DRUDGE REPORT, the Bush people what the CBS moderator off the debate. We’ll see how CBS and the moderating team respond to this.

http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd5.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
I doubt the CBS man will be removed. Instead, he will be the biggest pussycat among the moderators, just as the Bush people intended all along.
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News Downing Street - New memos released
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Interview: U.S., Russia still face mutual destruction threat
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K