CBS fires 4 for Rathergate

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Its too bad every 'organization' doesn't hold itself to this standard... Unfortunately, I know quite a few 'organizations' that refuse to accept responsibility when their 'employees' screw up.. repeatedly..

The most important one being situated on Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson
Its too bad every 'organization' doesn't hold itself to this standard... Unfortunately, I know quite a few 'organizations' that refuse to accept responsibility when their 'employees' screw up.. repeatedly..

The most important one being situated on Pennsylvania Ave.

The admin gets a review and the public decides every 4 years whether they want them back. CBS is not subject to that so enough already with this trite strawman.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson
Its too bad every 'organization' doesn't hold itself to this standard... Unfortunately, I know quite a few 'organizations' that refuse to accept responsibility when their 'employees' screw up.. repeatedly..

The most important one being situated on Pennsylvania Ave.

The admin gets a review and the public decides every 4 years whether they want them back. CBS is not subject to that so enough already with this trite strawman.

Someone call the waaaahmbulance. We've got ourselves another sore winner.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson
Its too bad every 'organization' doesn't hold itself to this standard... Unfortunately, I know quite a few 'organizations' that refuse to accept responsibility when their 'employees' screw up.. repeatedly..

The most important one being situated on Pennsylvania Ave.

The admin gets a review and the public decides every 4 years whether they want them back. CBS is not subject to that so enough already with this trite strawman.

A blank check to do anything an administration pleases. You make Baby Nixon smile.

 

[burnedout]

From the "comments made by Whitehouse staffers that CBS purposely withheld from the world" department:

Well, I think generally it's obviously that it's-- election season now . That-- every time (UNINTEL) near another election, all the-- innuendo and rumors about (UNINTEL) service and the national guard come to the forefront . And-- the fact that it's coming up now, by the time we're (UNINTEL) reading the polls, it's not surprising that people like (UNINTEL), a long time activist, democrat activist who is a vice chairman of John Kerry (PH) would be-- making these--recycled charges at President Bush.

Original interview with Dan Bartlett, exhibit 9B

Differs considerably from the original broadcast, eh? Damn "See BS"

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story

CsG

Happy now?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Who really cares about it at this point? I'm still waiting to find out "the rest of the story" about GWB which was the real issue here.

The truth is out there and will probably come out someday. I hope I live to see hear about it.

Mapes never found any proof of the "Champagne Unit" theory after investigating for over FIVE YEARS.

Page 46:

Mapes? research at the time consisted of gathering public documents through multiple requests under the Freedom of Information Act (?FOIA?) and interviewing people who had served in the TexANG at the same time as President Bush. Significantly, Mapes indicated in the April 1999 e-mail that she had been informed that there was no waiting list for President Bush?s TexANG unit at the time he entered. She posited the ?darkest spin? that then-Colonel Walter Staudt, then in charge of the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, deliberately kept these spots open ?to take in the children of privilege . . . while maintaining deniability.? Mapes told the Panel that she never found any proof for this theory.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Good to see there is still some responsibility in this world :thumbsup:

 

[burnedout]

Technically speaking, Mary Mapes comes off as a farking idiot though.

Page 166:

[Gil Schwartz, head of the communications group at CBS]"We need two things:
1. We need our expert available NOW to speak to all those who
are reporting this story. We need the expert. Now. We need
him now.
2. We need the talking points that can be crafted into a statement
of defense and talked about by Dan when he calls people.
#1 is essential RIGHT NOW. We NEED THAT EXPERT.
[W]ithout him, we?re TOAST.
Then we need #2, about six seconds later".

"Mapes, meanwhile, appears to have been focused on the superscript ?th? and on producing a piece for the September 10 CBS Evening News. She sent an e-mail to Schwartz, stating that they had put the superscript ?th? issue to rest by finding the superscript ?th? in the
official Bush records:"

[Mapes] "[F]OR THE 100TH TIME, THE ?TH? ISSUE IS GONE. WE HAVE
EXAMPLES FROM THE ?OFFICIAL? WHITE HOUSE DOCS.
WE?RE SET."

More extremely damning document analysis contained in Appendix 4:

In summary, Tytell concluded that the Killian documents were generated on a computer. He does not believe that any manual or electric typewriter of the early 1970s could have produced the typeface used in the Killian documents. He believes the IBM Selectric Composer "Press Roman" typestyle is very close to the typestyle used in the Killian documents but has noticeable differences . In addition, he told the Panel that the IBM Selectric Composer did not have the ability to produce the superscript "th" and the "#" symbol as a standard feature, and he believes it would have been unlikely for a TexANG office to have had those features customized on the machine. Therefore, he doubts the authenticity of the Killian documents because in his opinion they could only have been produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle that would not have been available in the early 1970s.

So, Dr. Joseph Newcomer, a computer typographical pioneer; Thomas Phinney, fonts program manager for Adobe, the most prolific imaging company on the planet; and Peter Tytell, a document examiner for 30 years, all conclude the Killian documents were generated on a computer.

Yet some crackpot English prof (David Hailey) at Utah State University thinks differently, and experiences a nervous breakdown when REAL EXPERTS contend otherwise. Tsk, tsk.

 

[burnedout]

Looks like Mapes and Rather were trying like hell to secure COL Hackworth's services as a "source" - Exhibit 9E

From page 96:

Mapes said that she asked Colonel Hackworth to ?look at the back and forth? in the Killian documents because he had worked in the Pentagon and knew about Pentagon politics. Even though Colonel Hackworth was never in the TexANG, did not know Lieutenant Colonel Killian or any of the other relevant individuals, had no personal knowledge of President Bush?s service in the TexANG and had no personal knowledge regarding the Killian documents, he reached some highly critical conclusions in his interview regarding President Bush?s TexANG service based solely on the purported authenticity of the Killian documents and his general knowledge of the military.

First, Colonel Hackworth concluded that the documents were ?genuine.? He reached this conclusion by relating his own experience at the Pentagon during the Vietnam War when he was running the ?Army input system for . . . basic training.? . . . .

Since when is a retired Army officer with an undergrad history degree from Austin Peay State University considered a document expert????????

Good gawd.

 

[raildogg]

Not surprising. Shame on CBS for their bias, such hatred for our sitting President.

Bernie Goldberg wrote of this in his book a few years ago. CBS is a channel devoted to the interests of democrats. That is all

 

[burnedout]

A Setback for a Network, And the Mainstream Media - The Washington Post

President Bush was reelected, and Dan Rather wasn't.

That, in a nutshell, is the outcome of a bitter four-month struggle between the White House, which insisted there was no basis for the "60 Minutes" report casting doubt on the president's National Guard service, and a major network whose controversial anchor chose to give up his job before the release of the outside panel's report that sharply criticized him yesterday. . . .

 

[burnedout]

CBS firings should go higher up, critics say - USA Today (a publication that endorsed no presidential candidates)

NEW YORK ? It was quiet along 60 Minutes row Monday as usually outspoken veterans such as correspondent Mike Wallace and others kept mum on a day when four CBS News colleagues lost their jobs.

"It's a sad day" is all Wallace would say of the fallout from the 60 Minutes "Memogate" story that questioned President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

So it was left to Andy Rooney, the 85-year-old 60 Minutes commentator, to weigh in.

"The people on the front lines got fired while the people most instrumental in getting the broadcast on escaped," Rooney said He was referring to the firing of producer Mary Mapes and the requested resignations of a senior vice president and two 60 Minutes producers while anchor Dan Rather and CBS News chief Andrew Heyward kept their jobs.

Rooney's opinion was echoed by some outside observers who said CBS didn't go far enough. . .

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson
Its too bad every 'organization' doesn't hold itself to this standard... Unfortunately, I know quite a few 'organizations' that refuse to accept responsibility when their 'employees' screw up.. repeatedly..

The most important one being situated on Pennsylvania Ave.

The admin gets a review and the public decides every 4 years whether they want them back. CBS is not subject to that so enough already with this trite strawman.

Someone call the waaaahmbulance. We've got ourselves another sore winner.

The sad attempts at redirects in here are prety telling.

It would seem you're the one whining that such due diligence should be applied to the man "situated on Pennsylvania Ave." If I call a waaaahmbulance it would only be to direct them to you.

Also let me repeat once again...I voted for Badnarik.

And, after reading this report, it a softpedal. It came up with few conclusions and failed to make the one pronouncement necessary - that the documents were forgeries. It also tapdances around the real reason this 60 minute report ever went to air - because Rather and Mapes were partisan shills, using their positions to foist their own biased opinions on an entire nation.

All in all it's a pretty lame report and doesn't go nearly far enough in settling the issue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson
Its too bad every 'organization' doesn't hold itself to this standard... Unfortunately, I know quite a few 'organizations' that refuse to accept responsibility when their 'employees' screw up.. repeatedly..

The most important one being situated on Pennsylvania Ave.

The admin gets a review and the public decides every 4 years whether they want them back. CBS is not subject to that so enough already with this trite strawman.

Someone call the waaaahmbulance. We've got ourselves another sore winner.

The sad attempts at redirects in here are prety telling.

It would seem you're the one whining that such due diligence should be applied to the man "situated on Pennsylvania Ave." If I call a waaaahmbulance it would only be to direct them to you.

Also let me repeat once again...I voted for Badnarik.

And, after reading this report, it a softpedal. It came up with few conclusions and failed to make the one pronouncement necessary - that the documents were forgeries. It also tapdances around the real reason this 60 minute report ever went to air - because Rather and Mapes were partisan shills, using their positions to foist their own biased opinions on an entire nation.

All in all it's a pretty lame report and doesn't go nearly far enough in settling the issue.

What you fail to understand was that your snide remark is nowhere near a valid comparison.

By your comment, it's ok for anyone in the Bush administration to be as corrupt as they want to be and be free from the consequences until the next election.

And, in the grand scheme of things, this doesn't even merit a drop in the bucket compared to the lies and exaggerations made to justify invading and occupying Iraq.

 

[abaez]

CBS' COWARDICE AND CONFLICTS BEHIND PURGE

Network's Craven Back-Down on Bush Draft Dodge Report Sure to Get a
Standing Rove-ation at White House
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
By Greg Palast

"Independent" my ass. CBS' cowardly purge of five journalists who exposed
George Bush's dodging of the Vietnam War draft was done under cover of what
the network laughably called an "Independent Review Panel."

The "panel" was just two guys as qualified for the job as they are for
landing the space shuttle: Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi.

Remember Dickie Thornburgh? He was on the Bush 41 Administration's
payroll. His grand accomplishment as Bush's Attorney General was to
whitewash the investigation of the Exxon Valdez Oil spill, letting the oil
giant off the hook on big damages. Thornburgh's fat pay as counsel to
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, the Washington law-and-lobbying outfit, is
substantially due to his job as a Bush retainer. This is the kind of stinky
conflict of interest that hardly suggests "independent." Why not just
appoint Karl Rove as CBS' grand inquisitor and be done with it?

Then there's Boccardi, not exactly a prince of journalism. This is the
gent who, as CEO of the Associated Press, spiked his own wire service's
exposure of Oliver North and his traitorous dealings with the Ayatollah
Khomeini. Legendary AP investigative reporters Robert Parry and Brian
Barger found their stories outing the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986 stopped
by their bosses. They did not know that Boccardi was on those very days
deep in the midst of talks with North, participating in the conspiracy.

Today I spoke with Parry at his home in Virginia. He was sympathetic to
Boccardi who at the time was trying to spring AP reporter Terry Anderson
held hostage in Iran. But to do so, Boccardi joined, unwittingly, in a
criminal conspiracy to trade guns for hostages. He then spiked his own news
agency's investigation of it. Parry later discovered a 1986 email from
North to John Poindexter in which North notes that Boccardi "is supportive
of our terropism (sic) policy" and wants to keep the story "quiet."
Poindexter was indicted, then pardoned. Boccardi was not, and there is no
indication he knew he was abetting a crime. But the AP demoted journalist
Barger and forced him to quit for -- the offense of trying to report the
biggest story of the decade. This hardly gives Mr. Spike the qualification
to pass judgment on working journalists.

And who are the journalists whom CBS has burned at the corporate stake?
The first lined up for career execution is '60 Minutes' producer Mary
Mapes. Besides the Bush draft dodge story, Mapes produced the exposé of the
torture at Abu Ghraib when other networks had the same material and buried
it.

I admit to a soft spot for Mapes. Four years ago, BBC Television London
broadcast my report that Jeb Bush had wrongly purged thousands of
African-Americans from the voter rolls, thereby fixing the election for his
big brother. CBS Evening News ran away scared from the story, as did ABC
and other US networks. This year, when Bush tried to repeat the trick,
Mapes wanted to put it on '60 Minutes.' However, after the draft dodge
story hullabaloo, that was not going to happen.

And what was the crime committed by Mapes and, let's not forget, Dan
Rather, whose career was also toasted by the story?

CBS said, "The Panel found that Mapes ignored information that cast doubt
on the story she had set out to report -- that President Bush had received
special treatment 30 years ago, getting to the [Texas Air National] Guard
ahead of many other applicants ?."

Well, excuse me, but that story is stone cold solid, irrefutable,
backed-up, sourced, proven to a fare-thee-well. I know, because I'm one of
the reporters who broke that story ? way back in 1999, for the Guardian
papers of Britain. No one has challenged the Guardian report, or my
follow-up for BBC Television, whatsoever, though we've begged the White
House for a response from our self-proclaimed "war president."

CBS did not "break" this Chicken-Hawk George story; it's just that Dan
Rather, with Mapes' encouragement, found his journalistic soul and the
cojones, finally, after 5 years delay, to report it. Did Bush get special
treatment to get into the Guard? Baby Bush tested in the 25th percentile
out of 100. Yet, he leaped ahead of thousands of other Vietnam evaders
because the then-Speaker of the Texas legislature sent a message to General
Craig Rose, head of the Guard, to let in Little George and a few other sons
of well-placed politicos.

[See some of the documentation at
http://www.gregpalast.com/ulf/.../draftdodgeblanked.jpg and a clip
from the BBC Television report at
http://www.gregpalast.com/images/TrailerClips.mov]

Mapes and Rather did make a mistake, citing a memo which could not be
authenticated. But let's get serious folks: this "Killian" memo had not a
darn thing to do with the story-in-chief -- the President's using his
daddy's connections to duck out of Vietnam. The Killian memo was a goofy
little addition to the story (not included in my Guardian or BBC reports).

So CBS inquisitors took this minor error and used it to discredit the
story and ruin careers of reporters who allowed themselves an unguarded
moment of courage. And, crucial to the network's real agenda, this
nonsensical distraction allowed the White House to resurrect the fake
reputation of George Bush as Vietnam-era top gun.

CBS executives' model was clearly the hatchet job done on BBC news last
year by the so-called "Hutton Report." In that case, some used-up lordship
viciously attacked the BBC's ballsy uncovering of an official lie: that
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Lord Hutton seized on a
minor error by one reporter to attempt to discredit the entire BBC
investigation of governmental mendacity.

In Britain, the public stood with the "Beeb." But in my own country, the
American press itself, notably the New York Times, has joined in the lynch
mob, repeating the allegations against the investigative reporters without
any independent verification of the charges whatsoever.

I would note that neither CBS nor the New York Times punished a single
reporter for passing on, as hard news, the Bush Administration fibs and
whoppers about Saddam Hussein's nuclear and biological weapons programs.
Shameful repetitions of propaganda produced no resignations -- indeed,
picked up an Emmy or two.

Yes, I believe heads should roll at CBS: those of the "news" chieftains
who for five years ignored the screaming evidence about George Bush's
dodging the draft during the war in Vietnam.

At the top of the network's craven and dead wrong apology to the
President is that cyclopsian CBS eyeball. But I suspect that CBS itself has
little interest in eating its own flesh. This vile spike-after-broadcast
serves only its master, the owner of CBS, Viacom Corporation.

"From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is
a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many
things we believe in, deregulation and so on?. I vote for Viacom. Viacom is
my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for
media companies than a Democratic one."

That more-than-revealing statement, made weeks before the presidential
election, by Sumner Redstone, billionaire honcho of CBS' parent company,
wasn't reported on CBS. Why not? Someone should investigate.

Viacom needs the White House to bless its voracious and avaricious need
to bust current ownership and trade rules to add to its global media
monopoly. Placing the severed heads of reporters who would question the
Bush mythology on the White House doorstep will certainly ease the way for
Viacom's ambitions.

At the least, at the upcoming inaugural parties, CBS' ruler Redstone can
expect that White House occupants will give him a standing Rove-ation.

 

[Starbuck1975]

By your comment, it's ok for anyone in the Bush administration to be as corrupt as they want to be and be free from the consequences until the next election.

No, what he was saying is that through our process of elections, the people can hold our President accountabile for his actions, regardless of those actions are illegal, unjustified or simply a question of poor judgment. If a President engages in illegal or other corrupt behavior, then of course he should be held accountable for those actions, and we have a process in place for that...however, I think the only evidence we have against the Bush administration is that of incredible incompetence, which is not against the law.

The news media plays an important role in our society, especially given the limited attention span of the average American. It is irresponsible and totally unjustified for a credible news organization to broadcast and further support a story without the documentation or proof to back said story...and to continue to defend said story well after there was enough evidence to demonstrate otherwise. The behavior of Dan Rather and CBS executives in the days and weeks after Rathergate was beyond arrogant and totally unprofessional.

It is encouraging that those in CBS responsible for this irresponsible journalism are facing the consequences for their zealousness, regardless of whether or not it was motivated by partisan politics...however, their firing is the exception rather then the rule in terms of media outlets holding their own ranks accountable, because there really isnt a system in place to keep dishonest journalism in check.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson
Its too bad every 'organization' doesn't hold itself to this standard... Unfortunately, I know quite a few 'organizations' that refuse to accept responsibility when their 'employees' screw up.. repeatedly..

The most important one being situated on Pennsylvania Ave.

The admin gets a review and the public decides every 4 years whether they want them back. CBS is not subject to that so enough already with this trite strawman.

Someone call the waaaahmbulance. We've got ourselves another sore winner.

The sad attempts at redirects in here are prety telling.

It would seem you're the one whining that such due diligence should be applied to the man "situated on Pennsylvania Ave." If I call a waaaahmbulance it would only be to direct them to you.

Also let me repeat once again...I voted for Badnarik.

And, after reading this report, it a softpedal. It came up with few conclusions and failed to make the one pronouncement necessary - that the documents were forgeries. It also tapdances around the real reason this 60 minute report ever went to air - because Rather and Mapes were partisan shills, using their positions to foist their own biased opinions on an entire nation.

All in all it's a pretty lame report and doesn't go nearly far enough in settling the issue.

What you fail to understand was that your snide remark is nowhere near a valid comparison.

By your comment, it's ok for anyone in the Bush administration to be as corrupt as they want to be and be free from the consequences until the next election.

And, in the grand scheme of things, this doesn't even merit a drop in the bucket compared to the lies and exaggerations made to justify invading and occupying Iraq.

conjur, you know as well as the rest of us that there are checks & balances in place.

If the evidence is there, GWB can be impeached just like Clinton was.

 

[SuperTool]

That's Rather harsh if you ask me. I would Rather they just reprimand them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Damage control at Black Rock

Let's start with the title of the CBS Panel: "Report of the Independent Review Panel Dick Thornburgh and Lewis D. Boccardi; Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, Counsel to the Independent Review Panel." My first question is from whom is the review panel and its hired lawyers independent? Who paid the law firm for its hundreds, probably thousands of hours of research? I assume CBS paid them.
Keep in mind, it was the law firm which did the actual investigation. I have already communicated with one person who was contacted by a lawyer for the firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart who was told that they were carrying out the investigation's research. And, of course, Mr. Thornburgh is a senior member of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP.

So the 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.
The foregoing is not meant to impugn the integrity of Mr. Thornburgh. He is a man of proven integrity. But it is meant to try to determine what his ethical obligations required of him. If CBS is his legal client, then he has an ethical obligation to represent CBS's best interests ? and certainly to minimize any exposure CBS might have to legal liability for their conduct.
I would assume that as a former attorney general and public man, he would also feel an ethical obligation not to report facts to the public other than those he believed to be correct and in fair context. While those two sets of ethical imperatives may sometimes be hard to manage simultaneously, from a first reading of the report it appears to me that he has upheld both of those ethical obligations.
Thus, the report issued this week appears to be a very thorough and accurate rendition of facts that demonstrate the bad journalism practiced by CBS.
This fulfills both his ethical obligations. He has been honest with his factual report, and, by being so, he has helped CBS appear to be coming clean with the public.
But where he has boldly sought and reported the objective facts, he has been cautious and inconclusive regarding the subjective characterizing of those facts.
So, for example, if CBS's own hired lawyer, Mr. Thornburgh had found that the document in question was actually a fraudulent Department of Defense document, or that anyone at CBS subjectively believed the document was fraudulent before they used devices of interstate commerce to broadcast it, he might have exposed CBS to criminal and civil liability on both forging government documents and wire fraud charges. The Thornburgh/Boccardi Report makes no such conclusion, although it does present facts that might lead a reasonable person to reach such a conclusion.
Neither did the report conclude that political motivations may have played a role in the bad journalism. Although, once again, the report had a whole section meticulously itemizing evidence of political or anti-Bush motivation. (This section, however, while accurate, was very far from exhaustive. For instance, no mention was made of the fact that Dan Rather had, in the past, spoken at a Texas Democratic Party fundraiser. No effort was made to do content analysis of Mr. Rather's news casts over the years to measure party bias ? an established technique used in academe on exactly such research projects.)
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. The report's concession of bad journalism merely conceded the undeniable. That fact had been apparent to most of the public and virtually all of the major news outlets by about September 10. Conceding bad journalism was merely a belated bow to undeniable reality. They couldn't possibly have conceded less than they did.
But the "Independent Panel" provided one more service to CBS. It showed the report to CBS executives before it released it to the public. Thus CBS was given a public-relations crises management expert's dream ? the extraordinarily valuable opportunity of simultaneously announcing the report's findings and CBS's corporate response to the findings ? which was to fire key executives and producers below Mr. Rather.
Thus, there was no headline this week stating that CBS admits documents were a fraud or caused by partisan bias. Instead, the headlines in papers as diverse as The New York Times, The Washington Times and The Washington Post were all the same: CBS fires 4. That headline was followed by the finding that CBS's journalistic standards had been deficient. As they say ? that's old news.
The crisis has been defused. The damage has been limited. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP have earned every last penny of the undoubtedly huge legal/PR bill that is now, presumably, in the mail to CBS.

CsG

 

[Pliablemoose]

Funny how "Rathergate" didn't get Rather fired.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Funny how "Rathergate" didn't get Rather fired.

Well, when company's attorneys are the "Independent Review Panel" things usually have a way of being protective of the company. I'm beginning to think Rather has some info on Moonves

CsG

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story

CsG

Unlike the Dub's Administration CBS cans those who are responsible for major fsck ups.

Oh look, it took exactly one reply for this to turn into a Bush-bash.



CsG

Does the truth hurt?? At least we're not wasting our time looking for WMD's anymore.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Who really cares about it at this point? I'm still waiting to find out "the rest of the story" about GWB which was the real issue here.

The truth is out there and will probably come out someday. I hope I live to see hear about it.

Mapes never found any proof of the "Champagne Unit" theory after investigating for over FIVE YEARS.

Page 46:

Mapes? research at the time consisted of gathering public documents through multiple requests under the Freedom of Information Act (?FOIA?) and interviewing people who had served in the TexANG at the same time as President Bush. Significantly, Mapes indicated in the April 1999 e-mail that she had been informed that there was no waiting list for President Bush?s TexANG unit at the time he entered. She posited the ?darkest spin? that then-Colonel Walter Staudt, then in charge of the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, deliberately kept these spots open ?to take in the children of privilege . . . while maintaining deniability.? Mapes told the Panel that she never found any proof for this theory.

If you want to argue that Bush went to the ANG to help his country instead of save his ass, go right ahead. You'll be arguing with yourself, because I know better.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story

CsG

Unlike the Dub's Administration CBS cans those who are responsible for major fsck ups.

Oh look, it took exactly one reply for this to turn into a Bush-bash.



CsG

Does the truth hurt?? At least we're not wasting our time looking for WMD's anymore.

Does the truth about Rather-gate hurt so you have to lash out at Bush?

Hmm...

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Who really cares about it at this point? I'm still waiting to find out "the rest of the story" about GWB which was the real issue here.

The truth is out there and will probably come out someday. I hope I live to see hear about it.

Mapes never found any proof of the "Champagne Unit" theory after investigating for over FIVE YEARS.

Page 46:

Mapes? research at the time consisted of gathering public documents through multiple requests under the Freedom of Information Act (?FOIA?) and interviewing people who had served in the TexANG at the same time as President Bush. Significantly, Mapes indicated in the April 1999 e-mail that she had been informed that there was no waiting list for President Bush?s TexANG unit at the time he entered. She posited the ?darkest spin? that then-Colonel Walter Staudt, then in charge of the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, deliberately kept these spots open ?to take in the children of privilege . . . while maintaining deniability.? Mapes told the Panel that she never found any proof for this theory.

If you want to argue that Bush went to the ANG to help his country instead of save his ass, go right ahead. You'll be arguing with yourself, because I know better.

Oh lookie - 1EZdunit thinks he knows better Out with it, lets see what info you have then? I'm sure Rather would love to put you on 60mins...

CsG