CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story

I'll get a link as soon as one is available.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml

Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush’s National Guard service.

The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.

The correspondent on the story, CBS News anchor Dan Rather, is stepping down as anchor of CBS Evening News.

How unfair and mean can they get,it keeps getting worse.

and golden spoon childhood. Keep it up.

of the shrub's spoiled childhood, but I guarantee that the talking heads and right-wing radio will focus on.....
"The panel said a “myopic zeal” to be the first news organization to broadcast"....
and use that as "proof" of left-wing media bias.

yep. Keep talking. Talk with everybody. I hope they talk about it with the troops in Iraq too.

you get to keep your job, and get medals too!

Have we reached a point where we accept that Republicans are babbling fools?

you will find that there were quite a few DUers that did not believe the documents were authentic and that took offense to Dan Rather's stonewalling when questions were raised in the MSM about the same documents.

We all know that Bush did not complete his TANG service. We also know that the documents that have been released under FOIA raised more questions about Bush's service record than they have answered. Having said that, the CBS documents fell short of the mark, and were quickly challenged by some of the players, including the secretary to Bush's CO. She said the documents were false, even though they represented what she knew to be the views of her boss.

As in a trial, once you cast doubt on the authenticity of a document, or on the credibility of a witness, their testimony becomes tainted.

If you want to blame someone, you should blame Dan Rather and Mary Mapes for their sloppy work! They succeeded in turning Bush into a victim of slander.

She also said that the documents reflected her boss's views at the time even if she didn't type them up for her boss.

There has been no evidence whatsoever that proves that these documents are false regardless of what Howie Kurtz and the rest of the major propagandists tell you.

CBS asked Burkett who his source was for the memos, and he provided the name of a National Guard friend of his. CBS NEVER CALLED THE "SOURCE" TO VERIFY THAT HE WAS INDEED BURKETT'S SOURCE.

AFTER the report aired, and the freepers "discovered" that the memos were phony (it was clear they were tipped off by someone in the Rove network) -- only THEN did Mary Mapes decide it would be a good idea to call Burkett's alleged source. The alleged source told that he knew nothing about the memos.

If I was president of CBS, I would have fired these four in record time.

What was determined was that they had been copied so many times over that it was impossible to determine they were authentic. By extension, it was also impossible to determine they were phony.

should be that you can prove it's authenticity, not that it can't be proven inauthentic.

in innuendo news. And it's working for them.

The focus should be on the content, not on the pieces of paper themselves.

If the memos cannot be authenticated, then the contents cannot be authenticated - at least from that source.

The fact remains that Bush did not complete his service. That should be the focus of attention, not a few documents.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

unfortunately, CBS's failure to properly check the authenticity of the documents and its sources has given the public the impression that there is no evidence whatsoever about Bush's failure to fulfill his military obligation.

Whatever one's views on this matter, there is no excuse for sloppy journalism. As Keith Olbermann is fond of saying: "if your mother tells you she loves you, check it out!"

false.

But Bill refusing to admit he took them from the trash did indeed taint the story.

They should have interviewed the Secretary to the Col and made her part her the center of the story - with the docs presented as data that may be true that agrees with her.

false. How convenient that certain right-wing blogs were all primed and ready to declare the docs forgeries. And how further convenient that the story the docs story replaced on 60 Minutes shot the bush* story about "Niger Yellowcake" right out of the sky.

Just out of curiosity: Is anyone keeping track of all the amazing coincidences that seem to swirl around bush*.

in a hurry. And the sad fact of the matter is that there is damned good evidence that bush* DID NOT fulfill his Guard obligation, not to mention being AWOL (which, by ALL definitions he was) or his disobeying a DIRECT ORDER to have his physical so he could maintain his flight status.

It seems the whole mess is now a non-story. But keep in mind that the documents have NEVER been proved to be a forgery. NEVER!!!

There would have been no questions about the documents. Rove sucks, but he is good at what he does.

He's smarter/sleazier than this. The fact that this blew up so fast sort of makes my point.

:shrug:

CBS uses the WH talking points memo in its newscast, they just don't push it as hard as the other networks and cable.

So Cable is far right, the other networks are right and CBS is stuck as trying to be an independent centrist.

The only news show left of center is Democracy Now.

I thought the response was excellent and honest.

Rather than take a look at legitimate questions about the documents and his sources, he chose to climb Mount Olympus and behaved like Bill O'Riley.

CBS's mishandling of this news story effectively neutralized the issue of Bush's missing service in the TANG. It was almost as if CBS's source had been an agent of the GOP, and CBS took the bait (along with many other people).

It's unfortunate, because the fact remains that coWard never showed up for his required service in Alabama, and this just clouds the issue. MSNBC has claimed this morning that the entire story was 'false', which of course isn't the case. The documents gave easy cover to the Republicans during the campaign, and that pisses me off.

Rather and Mapes were after Bush for five years. Bush knew this, Rove knew this and they played Rather like a fool.

Whether the story was planted by Rove or not, Mapes should have taken the time to decipher the story before presenting it to Rather for broadcast.

The story they should have run should not have been about Bush's TANG service. It should have been about passing off documents to CBS.

When this broke, I kinda felt this way too.
I mean, it was just too perfect for Bush, it made him out to be the victim!
We still don't know WHERE those documents came from.
It looks like we never may know, but it SURE was too convenient for Bush, wasn't it...

that's one loose end that should have been checked by CBS had they done their job right to begin with. Rather and Mapes's failure to check their sources thoroughly has closed the door on having the MSM pursue this story further.

Dan Rather kept inviting people on the CBS Evening News to dispute the allegations against his story, but these segments were always low on facts and high on opinion. It wasn't what I have come to expect from CBS News.

seems to me what she did in regards to the run-up to the war was far worse, if the media is going to clean house they should have started with her.

In the case of Miller, the reason she wasn't fire for failing to disclose the Chalabi was her source for the WMDs stories is because the NY Times was also an advocate for the war.

The only real journalism one sees today is often in the local press.

or so pages of documents was somehow inserted as an alleged fake, although even this STILL has not been proven.

CBS pres. Heyward crawls on knees & wimpers in the White House
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2897697

Coinkydink?

and not one of the MSM who pimped for the liars have backtracked, apologized, been reprimanded, or in any way suffered for spreading lies that turned an election. And, as far as I can see, our Dem leadership still refuses to take the media head on .:mad:

There will be hundreds of thousands of words in the presss about this alleged "scandal" but not a word in the MSM about election fraud in Ohio.

And we live in a "free" nation. Yeah right.

Color me not surprised.

Sigh,

The Plaid Adder

This white male republican party is isolating them selves more and more. They lost the election and cheated others out if anyway, the economy is in the shit can, there are wars or potential wars at every corner of the globe and they all get very scared when some one starts talking the truth and others are willing to listen.

To me ( a way I leaned to think from my wife)it looks like the male of the human species feels his place is being threatened, and the first thing they do is try to dismiss women because they are a threat to the males visions ans plans (their reality). That part feels instinctive, but the rest seems learned

Even children play this game after this learned social behavior takes root. I don't think any sex is better than the other at anything. Mostly I would just say we are all victims of own beliefs

On edit: spelling

Look at the stats! True, we are mostly all victims of our own beliefs.

A woman that stays with a batterer or an overbearing manipulator could be considered in prison. Of course both sexes do both, especially the latter. Also you might consider the traditional roles that class and society assign the sexes (based on tradition and not ability).

Both sexes have their burdens, but I would say in today’s world of US politics the male archetype (Condi Rice plays the role well) is in the retrenching mode, aggressive and hostile which translates terms not spoken, another words weak and afraid (mostly of their own making), because mostly who or what type of person has been calling the shots on a whole. Women or nurturing people need to see this as an opportunity for them. It's translatable if there are enough people who believe and understand what equality could bring.

People don't get defensive because of something somebody else did but because they fear loosing (even though the grasp they have is an illusion). I not saying it's all a matter of the male ego here, just the jungle, dog eat dog world we are living in is no longer sustainable or workable if anything is to survive (nature will extinct man first, to be sure)

I would hold up the name of a John Conyers or Dennis Kucinich over a Diane Feinstein or Hilary Clinton as an example of a progressive. We know them from their works and the fruits they bare.


What Are Archetypes?
(snip)
In Psychology
Twentieth-century psychiatrist C. G. Jung called these psychic imprints archetypes and emphasized their role in creating and healing psychological symptoms. Briefly, the more unconscious people are of the archetypes that determine what they think, feel, and do, the more likely it is that these archetypes may be expressed in negative ways. Making them conscious helps archetypes become positive allies instead of negative drivers.

As Psychological "Software"
We can also think of archetypes as the "software" of the psyche helping people to accomplish certain tasks. You can imagine that your mind came preprogrammed at birth with all available archetypes, but that only a few were accessed in your early years. This does not mean that you are "programmed" to act in any particular way, but that you have within all the archetypes you need for the challenges that you face. At any given time, two or three archetypes might be "open" in ways that influence what you are interested in, what motivates you, and what brings you satisfaction. One way of understanding this is to note when you are currently living their stories. However, you may have the virtues or vices of other archetypes, which left their "gifts" for you when they were more active during other periods in your life.

In Advertising and Branding
The most successful companies imbue product lines with meaning. Ivory soap is not just about getting clean; it connotes purity (Innocent). Nike ("Just do it") advocates heroic athleticism (Hero). Starbucks expresses images of exotic lands (Explorer). Because archetypes are the meaning magnets of the psyche, they provide a bridge between the deepest human motivations and felt experience (including products and services) that fulfill, or promise to fulfill, basic human needs.

In Values, Motivation, and Morale
When people love their lives and their work, they typically do so because they find them meaningful. The nature of that meaning can be unbundled to reveal a core, underlying archetype for each person. This archetype and its related mythic story provide the glue that keeps people committed to personal goals, to work, and to the workplace, even in difficult times.
(snip)
http://www.capt.org/Discover_Your_Archetypes/what.cfm

A simple phone call to Burkett's alleged source would have told them that the whole story was too fishy to air, but they didn't make that phone call. Why should they keep their jobs after such a monumental blunder?

Playing point on this one and being allowed to set his retirement ahead of time. Looks like he saw the writing on the wall.

Oh oh sorry nevermind what the hell was I thinking.

1) The 2000 Election: Who really won Florida?

2) 9/11: Who screwed up?

Well--they never happened. And there's even less chance of any real investigation happening now....

aired?

I've not been too political, although reading stuff on here has made me more so than ever :).

Back when this thing broke out, I remember thinking how this was so perfect for Bush. It worked in his favor, and most of my not-too-political friends (most democrats) thought that this DID prove that CBS was biased. I can imagine that this probably converted a few more votes to Bush from those idiot "undecideds".

I don't know if those memos are faked. I've read the pro's and con's about it, but I think the fact is that there should have been enough question about them to leave them out of that broadcast. All this did was make Bush and Republicans to be victims. Thus the REAL ISSUES were never seriously debated.

Freakin morons deserve to get fired in my opinion.

I just hope the right people got fired. Dan Rather should be too.

was less than truthful. She of all people should know the coverup is worse than the crime.

CBS memo to employees:

Most troubling, however, are the Panel's findings regarding Mapes' ongoing contention, later proven to be false, that the documents used in the story were authenticated and had been obtained from a "rock-solid" source who had established, in retrospect, a questionable chain of custody for them. The Panel also found that Mapes presented half-truths as facts to those with whom she worked. And they trusted her, relied on her impressive reputation and proven track record, and did not hold her to the high standards of accountability that have always been the backbone of CBS News reporting.

don't believe CBS was that stupid, just taken to the woodshed and the fear of terror put in them to the fouth generation.

Defending the authenticity of the documents made it look like we needed them. Many thought they were fake, this will look like confirmation in their minds.

<snip>

Bloggers have claimed the attack on CBS News as their Boston Tea Party, a triumph of the democratic rabble over the lazy elites of the MSM (that's mainstream media to you). But on close examination the scene looks less like a victory for democracy than a case of mob rule. On Sept. 8, just weeks before the presidential election, 60 Minutes II ran a story about how George W. Bush got preferential treatment as he glided through his time in the Texas Air National Guard. The story was anchored on four memos that, it turns out, were of unknown origin. By the time you read this, the independent commission hired by the network to examine the affair may have released its report, and heads may be rolling. Dan Rather and company stand accused of undue haste, carelessness, excessive credulity, and, in some minds, partisanship, in what has become known as "Memogate."

<snip>

When the central charge is a cover-up, as it was in the CBS story, vigilance is required. Thus, the connections between Bush's old associates should have seen print. Together the men formed a feedback loop, referring reporters to one another and promoting a version of events in which Bush's service is unquestionable, even exemplary. With such big names and old grudges in play, journalists are obliged to keep digging.

<snip>

While 2004 brought many stories of greater public import than how George W. Bush spent the Vietnam War, the year brought few of greater consequence for the media than the coverage of Memogate. When the smoke cleared, mainstream journalism's authority was weakened. But it didn't have to be that way.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20923/

in the National Guard, or more appropriately lack of.

Read the report, learn from it, brush the shoulder's off and move on.

???

The "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" just finished their analysis of this media "Blackeye". Shame on PBS!!

Nice to know I'm not the only person wandering how and why this report is being promoted as a one off type of phenomena.

Geez, there are questions as to whether there was even a waiting list to get into the Guard. Page 13 of the report. CBS is getting hammered in this report.

There is incriminating evidence and exculpatory evidence in the report. But details dont make any difference anymore. The average dumb voter will just "know" that CBS lied about their hero. Unless there is ironclad dated pictures of AWOL in Tahiti instead of Alabama, no one will touch this story anymore either. Radioactive. AWOL, sadly, skates due to cowardice and sloppiness of the whores.

anyway. 2/3 of the electorate wasn't alive or doesn't remember or care about Vietnam. 2/3 of draft age eligible men performed NO military service back then.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/domestic.htm

Of the 27 million men eligible for conscription during the Vietnam era, 8,720,000 enlisted, often to beat the draft; 2,215,000 were drafted; and almost 16 million never served

Plus a lot of voters who believe the war was unjust weren't going to be impressed with someone who volunteered to go kill brown people.

Kerry should have concentrated on the mess in Iraq now not what happened 35 yrs ago - I've known a lot of Vietnam veterans in my life, never have I known anyone who so obsessively had to speak on his service - in real life people who constantly remind you of their heroic war experience are known as bores. I've noticed several on DU.

To sum it up - Don't tell me what you've done, tell me what you've done lately.

But they're different, aren't they?

And I've heard from several Vietnam vets here on DU. None at all have claimed to be heroes--& none have been bores, either. Oh--"Kerry is a bore" was another of the memes....

they were in Vietnam every single day - is a bore. I've got a father in law who has told me the same WWII stories for 20 years - sorry he's a bore.

And it didn't work for the Swift Boat Liars - I doubt they changed one single vote.

That would put you in the generation that dealt with Vietnam. How did you deal?

And--whether the Swift Boat idiots changed any votes or not--none of them suffered any consequences for their lies.

Your father in law is a WWII vet so that means you had to deal with Vietnam? :wtf:

Let's see men could come back from WWII at age 22 (1945) and reasonably have kids up to age 40 - 1963- that would have me 10 and "dealing with Vietnam". Add in the fact that it's my father in law whose age has no relationship with my age since I could conceivably marry someone older than myself, making it even more unlikely that I had to deal with Vietnam.

And when did how one "dealt" with Vietnam become such a subject of concern with progressives?

If I fell into the previously documented 16 million out of 27 million who performed NO military service during Vietnam what would that mean to you?

But since you asked - I was born in 1956, enlisted in the AF at age 17 - 1974-- Vietnam had been over for 18 mos.

is that Burkett probably wasn't the original source.

As a former statistician, I ask that you don't look at numbers like they were reality. There are so many ways to rig numbers - who was "eligible", what age groups? What years did they count for those eligible for drafts? The early years, there were many who were elibigle to serve, but the number in Vietnam was low. How many during the high point of the war, say the early 70s, served vs. how many were eligible? A lot got out via college (on the flip side we had many more going to college than might otherwise have done). Some went out of country.

IN GOD WE TRUST. REST BRING DATA.

Having lived through that time period, I can say that they were drafting 18 year olds, and when they reached the birthday-lottery draft, where your probability of being drafted depended on what order your birthday was drawn.

What I know about the time was that only a select few got to go into the National Guard as a way out.

The source of the story may have been flawed. The substance was not.

Why a Federal Judge Trampled Law

The fine hand of corruption and greed at the highest levels in the Justice Department is the common thread running through the web of conspiracy in the INSLAW affair.

Exclusive to American Free Press
By Michael Collins Piper

In March 1982 the Washington, D.C.-based INSLAW company, owned by Bill and Nancy Hamilton, won a $10-million, three-year contract with the Justice Department, which planned to install the PROMIS software, developed by Bill Hamilton, in the 22 largest U.S. attorneys’ offices and a word-processor version in 72 others.

In the meantime, however, Dr. Earl Brian, a longtime crony of then-Attorney General Edwin Meese, began using his clout to interfere with the Hamilton’s contract in order to win the contract for a company that he owned after the Hamiltons refused Brian’s offer to purchase INSLAW. Brian, who had wide-ranging international contacts, was widely believed to be a longtime asset of the CIA.

SNIP...

Alerted to growing awareness of the affair, then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) convened an inquiry into INSLAW. Brooks found that the Justice Department, under new attorney general, Dick Thornburgh, constantly stonewalled to keep the matter under wraps.

Meanwhile, Justice appealed the adverse ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals which, in May 1990, fixed things for the department. The appeals court did not address the actual merits of the complaint, ruling the bankruptcy venue had never been the place to hear the case in the first place, meaning the Hamiltons would have to file a new suit if they wanted justice.

CONTINUED...

http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_03_02/Judge_Trampled_Law/judge_trampled_law.html

PS: FUCK YOU, BUSH!

Edit: Typo in title. FUCK YOU, BUSH!

And the CBS News story didn't cost thousands of innocent lives.

doesn't mean Chimp is actually on the level
They are using the CBS thing to simply Chimp is squeaky clean.
snip
The documents suggested that Mr. Bush disobeyed an order to appear for a physical exam, and that friends of the Bush family tried to “sugar coat” his Guard service.


Without a doubt Chimp is guilty of alot of coverups regarding his past.
Just because this particular story couldn't be verified doesn't clear him.

By the way, the fact remains that he used "privilege" to get out of serving in Viet Nam by being allowed to train to fly planes that were obsolete and would never be used in combat

attacking the messenger. This was about the little asshole's dismal Guard record. The rw successfully turned it into an attack on CBS.

When will Novak pay a price for Plame, or the corporate whores for the Swiftboat liars or accepting payola to push the rw agenda? Answer: Never

Jesus, 4 members of a news organization lose their jobs because they didn't sufficiently investigate the authenticity of a document which, though it might have been fake, is almost undeniably true.

OTOH, George Tenet is given the Medal of Honor for providing dubious information to back provably faked contentions by the Bush administration that Saddam had WMD, resulting in (so far) 1300 American dead, 10,000 severely injured, likely 100,000 Iraqi dead, untold destruction and deprivation in Iraq, and a cost to taxpayers of $200 billion.

And NOBODY at the CIA received even a slap on the wrist.

Yeah, the economic fallout killed a lot of jobs.

But NOBODY was called on the carpet about the attack itself.

"Their findings were contained in a 224-page report made public on Monday. While the panel said it was not prepared to brand the Killian documents as an outright forgery, it raised serious questions about their authenticity and the way CBS News handled them."


WHAT A BUNCH OF BULLCRAP, CBS HAS JUST BEEN HANDED A SLOW DEATH NOTICE OR IT JUST COULD BE FASTER THAN THEY THINK.

The real story here is Bush missing his physical. Why? He had been doing community service in Houston on a coke possession charge. He would have failed the drug test. Helen Thomas tried to get information on this at a WH press conference but was rudely ignored. Rove wanted to divert all guard duty issues to Bush's service only.

haven't been on since the selection of bushy ass boy

this really takes the cake.......the truth of the matter is bush was awol..nobody came forward to prove he was there and claim the money that was offered.

second......the media is incompetent when it comes to reporting news......they stick to their own bias as in foxy news.........they do their dam est to disprove the real truth in reporting parties are lying.example Peter Arkett(spelling) when he reported the real truth in Iraq.....and was fired for doing so.

the republicans own the media in all shapes and forms...there is no getting the truth out.....its hidden...except when the Democrats are in the wrong and everything is blown out of context........

as for myself.I haven't watched the local or cable news since Sept of 04....I keep up with-the important news when I visit DU.......I do not miss the lies....My ulcers are on the mend..........and I have no idea what our party is going to do.

I had a re issue card for my absentee ballot sent to me(Florida) and have yet to send it back out......hell, I don't even know if mine was counted..as in Pinellas county some were lost and some not counted......
screw the media.............

Death to MSM!

None.

That's because the right wing owns the U.S. media and they are paid to lie for the right wing. If the right wing media isn't lying, they aren't doing their jobs.

followed to a tee by FOX, CNN, MSNBC, et al, each and everytime any thing detrimental is ever broadcast about anyone on the other side of the aisle.

what they did was beyond the pale of journalistic ethics and integrity. There was NO WAY that story should have hit air with all the holes in it.

and their favoritism of the Repukes.:puke:

Some times we have to keep it simple.
Bush got out of the Guard 8 months early to pursue a Master's in Business at Harvard! Bush even said that to the nation.
What a lost sound bite!
Does he let the Guard out 8 months early or forces them to the max for his father's unfinished wars?

He should have been asked:

How can you as Commander in Chief ask National Guard Forces to carry out your missions for you when you yourself wiggled your way out 8 months early to study at HAHVAHRD (no insult intended, just I think that mention could swing Red state voters.) when you were close to your CONNECTICUT family. (again, no insult, just reminding the red staters that Georgie Porgie isn't as Texan as he electoral votes hopes he is!)

you obviously believe in post quality over quantity.
Let us keep talking about Bush's scumbag credentials.

Rove and the Swiftboat Liars must be ecstatic. The case is closed. Nobody will touch it again ... ever.

nt

top 2 men - Heywood and Rather come out smelling like a rose.

Guess the old boys network is alive and well at CBS

I still think the CBS CEO's blowing Shrub and Rove at the Super Bowl half-time would we most appropriate. Beats a thirty something divas breast any old day of the week

Are we so far gone that "fake but accurate" works for us now?

If so... we can forget about having any relevance as a national party until further notice. We all know someone who at sometime got so wound up over some personal issue they just lost touch with reality. We all know someone who at some point in their lives became a fanatic, as the term was defined by W.S. Churchill:

"... someone who won't stop talking, and won't change the subject."

When people get to this point, then talking to them becomes a chore... and after awhile we just quit listening... because we know all we will hear is caterwauling nonsense... on a topic which has no relevance or import.

We Democrats have turned ourselves into such. The Vietnam war is over ... the 2000 election is over ... and the 2004 election is over . Everyone else knows these facts, so its time for us to suck it up and move on with real issues.. current issues. If we don't do that we will not only continue to lose the debate on national issues, we will be discounted before the debate starts.

They call us "KoolAide Drinkers" and "Barking Moonbats", and for an increasing number of us, its a fair court. We need to sober up and get back to engaging in real discourse on national politics. Either that or prepare ourselves for a long cold dark schlep into the political wilderness.

And--how nice that you choose your very first post to tell "us" to Shut Up.

The Vietnam War was not over for the Swift Boat Liars--& all the media who repeated their lies on every show. There was definitely election theft in 2000 & nothing was done before the last election--so that one is a bit suspect, too. Which media outlets will report a true "political discourse"?

Which Democratic issues are important to you?

No... I did not request that you "shut up". Instead, I suggested we sober up and help form a concensus on behalf of our party that what CBS did in this case is reprehensible. A lot of other folks in our party are lashing themselves to the mast of this ship of fools... WHY? Do we really need to take "Pro" position on lying to the public for their own good?

America never bit on this fairy tale - they aint ever going to - and whimpering about it just make us look like idiots. How the hell is "fake but accurate" reporting a stance that makes sense for us? Its a path to losing all hope of regaining positions of national political leadership . And yes.. this story is in the news... and its a giant turd. I am merely suggesting you don't hug it so tightly.

I humbly suggest we forego getting married to Rather and Mapes and do something relevent - like address Social Security reform with a cogent plan. That's a gauntlet that we could pick up and actually do something with. SS reform is an issue we could own... an issue we could show leadership on... or we can just keep slurping the KoolAide.

Your call...

What are your proposals?

I'd say NO reform is needed. Perhaps some adjustments to ensure its long term health--but there's no "crisis". People who want "Private Accounts" should start them with their own money.

And I'm still angry at the handling of this story. We have some questionable documents--but it's well known that Bush used influence to get into TANG & then skipped out on his obligation. And other media characters have passed on black lies--that have led to people dying. They aren't suffering, they are prospering.

Really, since we should just ignore the consolidation of the media or the daily needless deaths in Iraq.

Let's play "Who wants to steal my pension!"

You say that people who want private accounts should start them with their own money? I'd consider the money thay are placing into social security now is their own money. It was taken out of their paycheck after all.

You have to have balance in these things. I think it is likely possible that a portion of social security can be privatized. One thing the dirty world of investment and such can do is make money. And I have no problem with having more money when I get older.

You might want to consider Mr. Bush's track record of filling his cronies pockets but promising to put a few more bucks in yours. Hasn't happened.

"I'd consider the money thay are placing into social security now is their own money."

IT's not thier money. it belongs to everyone. Taking care of the country and those less fortunate is more important than your shiny new SUV.

But the fact that money that comes out of your paycheck is your money is still correct.
A guy like me with a dirty old truck knows that for sure. I used the dirty old truck to go to work and get the check. No shiny new suv's here.

If private funds pay out better, that lowers the amount that needs to come out of the public fund to pay the folks who used the private fund option. And some is still going in there. The funds going in need to be managed better, not just tossed in a bucket and left there.

elections are controlled by criminals.

And for that matter, Bush is called a great leader by his mafia. So what?

Thus, they are incapable of true understanding. Your point is solid, sadly most people won't listen. Their hatred blinds them.

based community.

The GOP leadership only wishes we were blinded by hatred -- it would make the kleptos job so much easier.

lol

A: I guess Bush hasn't any grounds to.

not because the papers were forged, or the facts were wrong, but because the story was unfavorable towards the dictator. In airing it, the CBS people were "overzealous" in exposing the truth.

Imagine the chagrin among pukes when it aired--they'd had those papers destroyed and the records white-washed. They'd covered up the whole thing, and here it was coming out again. Heads had to roll.

hmm

that CBS and most especially Rather was set up? The Bush family really hates Rather and Republicans in general probably keep a voodoo doll of him in their desk drawers. Is this possible?

any other idiots want to answer my question? Why hasn't Bush sued for libel?

Because if your opponent is continuously self-impaling themselves on a very sharp stick, why do anything?

1. Using unvetted memo's - ouch
2. Defending their use without rechecking - double ouch
3. Issuing a harsh report using the term "myopic zeal" - OUCH!
4. Not firing those that should have known better - OOOUUUUCH!

It don't cost and it don't risk anything to sit and watch.

keep kidding yourself.

when Mapes failed to authenticate the memos. The story turned instantly and even insulated Bush from further examination. The story is about hubris and arrogance.