Ratherbiased thinks that CBS (they’re supposed to make an announcement at 5 p.m. today) will stick with its story.
"While the release is being carefully crafted with the assistance of the Viacom legal department, Dan Rather and his associates are directing members of the media to an interview which Rather did with the highly influential New York Observer media columnist Joe Hagan in which the 72-year-old anchor blasts his critics in no uncertain terms.
’I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of the story,’ Rather told the paper. ’If you can’t deny the information, then attack and seek to destroy the credibility of the messenger, the bearer of the information. And in this case, it’s change the subject from the truth of the information to the truth of the documents.
This is your basic fogging machine, which is set up to cloud the issue, to obscure the truth,’ he said."
Here is the Joe Hagan article mentioned.
Is it possible they are going to argue that the story is true somehow, even if the documents are false? I can’t believe it.
while Rather is a fool not to say, "yeah, I screwed up on the documents. I am sorry." It is still the case that the fundamental story is unchanged by the falsity of these documents. Bush’s lack of service completion is well documented elsewhere. Here for example:
https://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004701.php
Thankyou Peter for posting this. The fundamental story is not only unchanged, but confirmed in more detail. It is now clear that the memo authenticicy issue is nothing more than a smoke screen to deflect people’s attention away from the fact that George Bush did indeed get preferential treatment so that he could avoid going to Vietnam. When I exchanged a few messages with LT Naum here a few months ago(are you reading this, LT Naum?) these issues came up. To wit: did people join the guard units to avoid going to Vietnam, and if so how hard was it to get into a guard unit? I remember that in my area there were long waiting lists to get into the guard, but told LT Naum that I wasn’t sure about other localities. Thanks to Ben Barnes, that has now been cleared up. I think it’s important for people to know just how hyocritical many present day conservatives really are. George Bush -uses preferential treatment to get into the national guard and then shirks his duties. This is the same George Bush who refused to attend a single military funeral because he thought it was politically inexpedient. Dick Cheney -5 deferments and never did serve, John Ashcroft -6 deferments and never served. But these same leaders(and many others) are great for being pro-military until it’s time for them(or family members) to step up to the plate. Then those true colors show through loud and clear! Perhaps Colin Powell summed it up best of all: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."
Memo to Dan: the story isn’t discredited by attacks on the credibility of the reporter, the story is discredited because the fundamental evidence given to prove the premise of the report is fake.
And I’m sure Christopher and Frank were equally outraged by Bill Clinton’s avoidance of the draft. I’m sure they supported war heroes like George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, who didn’t begin their acceptance speeches by saluting and saying, "Reporting for duty."
I don’t blame anyone for wanting to avoid going to Vietnam, a waste of life and treasure that served no essential American interest. My father--who, by the way, came from a poor family--managed to get into the Army Reserves, and as a result spent his active duty at Fort Knox. Good for him, I say.
Finally, forgery isn’t a "smoke screen"--it’s a serious crime. And it happened recently, not thirty years ago. If indeed those memos came from someone in the Kerry campaign, it deserves to become an issue in this election.
I wonder what quote from Colin Powell would be appropriate for those who met with the North Vietnamese and gave aid and comfort to the enemy, those who spat on their medals, ribbons, or other decorations (depends what the word is, is), and called all the soldiers in Vietnam "war criminals" as well as himself. I’m glad the common American person has seen through all this sophisty and is pushing Bush far ahead in the polls. Nice try, Kerry. Note to Democrats - find a patriotic candidate, not a 1960s radical who hated "Amerika."
How is it that we are just supposed to assume there is "truth" to the rumor of Bush’s attempts to avoid Viet Nam and that the recent memos may be forged but that "truth" inevitably lies within the message of the fake memos?
Yet, when Kerry’s scratch "wounds" for which he actually received a purple heart come into question, we’re just supposed to believe that the rumors were started as a malicious attempt to malign a war "hero"?
Can’t have it both ways, folks.
Mr. Gordon: What do you make of the fact that Kerry sought a deferment? I commend him for his service, but if we are to judge individuals based on the fact that they took steps to avoid active combat, then it is difficult ex ante to tell Kerry and your parade of Republicans apart. It is dangerous to throw stones at Republicans for seeking deferments when the current Democratic candidate also sought a deferment, and the previous Democratic president was a draft dodger.
The responses were predictable: 3 of the type let’s-change-the-subject, one downplay(it’s not the big of a deal) and one ostrich response. The only surprise was that nobody called Barnes a liar. Face it -you’re boy is a coward dressed up in cowboy’s clothing.
By the way, John, I voted for Bush Sr. I still think he was a good president.
Damn. Please correct the bonehead spelling error and replace "you’re" with your.
Face it, Frank, you’re a dick. Facts come with evidence. Everything else is just rumor. Period. You think Bush failed somehow? Prove it. We can prove Kerry lied, over TWO HUNDRED of the people that served with him say so. And your boy slick willey got impeached for lying, too. We got the Congessional records and testimony. What do you have on Bush? You got dick. You hate the man, vote for somebody else. But quit trying to make your protest look noble by spouting lies you’ll never prove.
Please ingore the additional posting. Apparently, my privilege doesn’t afford very good internet service (or the spell-check to ensure that I spell "privilege" correctly).
Dan Rather and the democratic party believe it’s common knowledge that Bush got specail treatment in TANG, but these documents are the only one’s ever to possibly prove it, and since they’re forged, the story goes back to being just a rumour instead of a fact. Dan, don’t you get it?