Originally posted by: burnedout
I agree with most of what you said, but we part company here. I do not believe for a moment that CBS set out to smear Bush. They had reports from people who seemed credible. They had incriminating documents corroborating those reports. It made a good, timely story as we approached the election.
CBS claims they made an effort to authenticate the documents. In 20/20 hindsight, they obviously did not do enough. Given the rest of their information, however, it's not that surprising CBS felt its efforts were good enough. They had multiple, corroborating sources supporting their story.
In short, to suggest CBS is at the same level as the Swift Boat Liars is unwarranted. The Swift Boat Liars intentionally and maliciously set out to attack Kerry. At worst, CBS made a dumb mistake while pursuing a legitimate -- though in my opinion, largely unimportant -- investigative news story.
Finally, note that the CBS story has not been refuted. While the authenticity of the CBS copies of the documents is in question, they still have multiple sources supporting the story. They even have the secretary (sorry, can't remember her name) saying she believes the content of the documents is real. While that's not as flashy as authentic documents, it's still a solid story.
In spite of all this, as I said in the other thread, the CBS story and the Swift Boat Liars are both diversions from the real stories like the Iraq quagmire and Bush's abysmal performance for the last four years.
Oh, I agree. Both stories are big-time diversions from real issues.
Here are the problems that I have with all of those corroborating sources in the CBS case. Every single one of them - Republican and Democrat - is admittedly partisan. I've yet to find an exception. For one moment, let's take a brief look at the cast of characters.
Marian Carr Knox - former secretary at Ellington AFB. Disputes the document's authenticity. In the same breath, however, she says Bush was "selected", not elected, and then goes on to say something to the effect of "that is what Jerry would say. Meanwhile, Gary Killian states she was a pool typist, not LTC Killian's personal typist. To my knowledge, old lady Knox hasn't publicly denied this pool typist allegation. Additionally, Gary says his father spoke highly of Bush. Udell (LTC, Ret), Staudt (BG, Ret), and Morisey (LTC, Ret) all agree with Killian. Yet all three also support Bush. Meanwhile, Gary Killian (CPT, TxANG, Retired) publicly supports Bush. So who should we believe? Should we believe a Democrat because we want Kerry to prevail in November or should we believe a Republican for the opposite reason?
Ben Barnes - former Texas Lt. Gov. He's contributed or raised around $500,000 for the Democrats. His claims are a matter of record but have never been substantiated by anyone. When called on his allegations in court during the GTECH trial here in Austin, he slightly changed his story, and then went on to later make a commercial during which he "mispoke". Should I actually believe him? I know a gal here in Austin who works around him. She doesn't fully believe everything he says either and she's a Democrat. Moving right along, his daughter Amy goes on both Dallas local and ABC radio stating that her father told her differently in 2000 and therefore "contradicts himself". Who should we believe? The only time this guy makes the news is either for corporate corruption, bankruptcy litigation or to say he helped Bush into TxANG either as TX House Speaker or Lt. Governor, depending upon which year it is.
Bill Burkett - Good old Bill. I mean ya gotta kinda feel sorry for this old boy. Here he required intervention from state politicians just to receive full medical benefits from the Guard. First, he says Bush's records were sanitized. However, three Bush supporters claim he's lying. Next, he writes essay after essay on the intraweb, all the while railing against Bush. Then he claims Conn supplied him with the documents in question. Conn, now working for the Army in Germany says no way. Now he says "Ms. Ramirez" contacted him and he was lying about Conn all along. Finally, he wants to sue CBS for breach of contract. Should I believe this man?
You know me. In a serious discussion, when I'm not whaling on some stupid 19 year-old kid for idiotic comments, I tend to take a moderate stance and place the rightwing rants off to the side. All I ask is one simple question. Is there anyone making allegations or defending this person or that in the CBS situation who
hasn't publicly stated that they support one side or the other?[/quote]
Marion Knox hasn't taken any sides that I'm aware of.
The Flight Surgeon??
An array of Guard officials ? including a Houston physician who spent 10 years as the flight surgeon for Bush's air wing ? said they could not recall another pilot who skipped his mandatory medical exam.
"There were cases where they'd be a few weeks late because their regular jobs might get them in a bind," retired flight surgeon Jerry Marcontell said in a recent interview. "But I don't remember anyone missing a physical for months at a time. Certainly not a year."
How about this guy?
Bush's onetime roommate and Guard buddy, Dean Roome, told USA Today in 2002 that the future president started out "gung-ho." But, Roome added: "Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life."