Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Oh! Please!
The two greatest dangers to CBS coming out of the September 8 broadcast were that it would be found that they: 1) knowingly broadcast fraudulent Defense Department documents, and 2) were motivated to do so because they are biased against George Bush and the Republican Party....And it was on those two vital points that the Thornburgh Report failed to come to a conclusion.Why?
...lawyers hired to independently investigate CBS have a lawyer/client relationship with CBS. Presumably, as a senior member of that firm, Independent Review Panel Member Richard Thornburgh also has CBS as a fiduciary client. Thus, unlike similarly named government independent investigations — this one is paid for by, and carried out on behalf of, the target of the investigation.
Mover Mike
Oh! Please, Peter Ames Carlin of The Oregonian!
Once again you have written about CBS and "The Dan Rather fiasco. You say those heads needed to roll for broadcasting a POTENTIALLY damaging story that leans on unverifiable documents (not fakes, as has been proved, but unverifiable. If we weren't under such time pressure, we could have found a way to verify the documents). Then the stubborn defense of its story made matters worse. Then you go on to say
But before we engage in some old-fashioned righteous indignation about the (many) errors made by CBS news employees, perhaps we should take a look at the folks leading the angry chorus.and you list
1)CBS President Leslie Moonves who slashed the news budget.
2)Fake news like the Armstron Williams story.
3)Bush White House producer of political propaganda.
4)"The way the Kerry campaign buzzed around the CBS story." (I have no idea what this means.)
The most dismaying thing, according to Carlin, is that the story was beside the point. Not only did it "bump an investgative piece about the Bush Administration's steps to war in Iraq", but afterall, the NYT had already "richly documented this story(about Bush's ANG lapses) just days before." I wrote on September 21st, Byron York refuted these NYT ANG lies in a story titled
Bush’s National Guard yearsFinally, Carlin you betray more of your own biases:
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts
After all, the net result of the CBS National Guard story was that the once-ticklish issue of Bush's Vietnam-era service vanished from the national narrative. The conservatives' just-as-shaky assertions about Kerry's war record continued to be reported, however.Did you read the book by the Swift Boat Vets? Did you devote any of your ink to this story? Did any of the MSM in an investigative way? Did any of you pause to think why over 250 Vets would say these things versus the few who sided with Kerry. Remember the Vet that met Kerry at the Vietnam Memorial. He walked up to him , introduced himself and said "I'm here to escort you away. You do not belong here, Sen. Kerry!" And in response,Kerry gave him the finger. Did you ever investigate why he was so disliked by the Vets? Did you ever investigate how Kerry got away with meeting with the enemy while still in uniform?
Oh! Please, Peter Ames Carlin of The Oregonian. As I told you before, regarding Dan Rather, IT WASN'T BUSINESS.IT WAS PERSONAL!
Mover Mike
