this one is great.. Some of Mary Mapes accounting and documentation to get you to buy her book.
http://www.truthandduty.com/documents.htm



One thing we can summarize is Staudt is a political partisan who voted for Bush and seems to be as partisan as they come, his character to me is questionable.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2...b20040920.asp#1

here is Bush getting special attention from the guard... showing it was done


here he lies as we know Bush scored at the bottom of the acceptable on the pilots test.



here he goes again as it was stated above he did have pull.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...arnes092199.htm
http://www.topplebush.com/article26_military.shtml

here is more hogwash by this partisan. shortage of pilots when there were 150 on a waiting list that scored above the 50% on a pilot test that bush scored. and how does he know if there was or wasn't, he talks big..
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h071399_1.shtml


pure hogwash "highly" a person who is the bottom of the testing is highly?????? what a idiot... a discrace to the high ranking officers out there to distort those words.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/st...3458&page=1



here is the gov requirement to get in the guard at that time, which Bush did not meet the criteria.
http://www.truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid...n_guard/?page=3



ya got to love some of these documents Mary has on her website.

http://www.truthandduty.com/documents/doc2_1-5.pdf

http://www.truthandduty.com/documents/doc9_1-3.pdf

good and there was no way I wanted to spend tax payers dollars on the second righty independent counsel on Clinton. I had no problem with the first one. there are some who are willing to get the truth and some who do not care about the truth. and yes I do think this is an important issues of constitutional importance, individuals have the right to truth justice and the so called american way; that has gone away. Again we do not have Bush saying that these issues are wrong, we just have him saying his family did not ask the guard. again they had someone else. and by keeping his statement at that and allowing people to be fired he is a criminal/low life. he has the power to do an investigation.

so you seem to think no one would build a system like that, but 20 years ago maybe it was easier because the computing power was not so great. and again where were you going to put the signatures? I can tell you if I was designing it and the signature came from where the printed OCR was I would put it right back there overlayed to make the decision easy from the software standpoint.

All that the links you cited, inventor, "prove" is that Mary Mapes is a crappy journalist and not only should she have been fired over this, she really never should have been hired and put into the position she was. All of her crap is nothing but a bunch of rumor, innuendo and gossip. Much like what you have posted here quite frankly.

But, there's a big difference between airing a news story on a television network and spinning tinfoil hat theories here on AD. The bar for television is considerably higher. Of course, so is the pay scale.


Aquilla

please speak for yourself, I made my first million 10 years ago. yes there are some who are big talk and there are some that actually can take theory and put it into reality.

Are you saying being a "A Peabody Award-winning producer" is not high enough of a standard for your liking. so I guess all journalists need your stamp of approval. just because you do not like a or many journalists is not my fault... gee if the people in power would just answer the questions honestly maybe we could get the truth. But I do not see Bush willing to answer even questions about 9-11 on the record by himself. Gee a event that caused some major destruction and for the purposes of the future to determine what went wrong so it would not be repeated he will not testify without someone holding his hand and under oath.

Now how do you rectify 2 people remembering these issues going on in the guard with Killian, specifically him being upset with people pulling strings for a person whom he would not rate normally. are they part of your tin foil conspiracy? IE the secretary.... she remembered these issues very clearly...... did some liberal journalist waterboard her to force her to remember this.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know. We've read the Forrest Gump resume (several times). By the way, a guy named Gary Dahl made several million "inventing" the Pet Rock.






The Peabody award was given for the Abu Ghraib story that aired on "Sixty Minutes II" and was based on the importance of the story itself. From here we get the following......




That doesn't give Ms Mapes or Dan Rather carte blanche to make crap up for other stories to serve their own political agenda. That's not journalism, that's "inventing stuff". Apparently, you don't know the difference.


Aquilla

and every time you escalate your insults I come back with the positive.... you would think you would have figured it out by now. any insults and I find posting positive aspects is fun. excellent that you know my story of being VP of Engineering within 3 years of full time work and a patent about then too, as well as director of R&D of a northern cal tech company. as well as many patents. as well as being a nearly straight A student in grade school. as well as being tested to top 5% of engineers. as well as in the last 5 years more than 5 national and international awards . Like I said some people with tin hats like to insult and I have the resume that walks the walk. I will start a tech thread to demonstrate how a good open mind can be a step above. In fact for the one or two I will discuss if you have the tech where with all you will know the ability I have. both would have been patentable but I disclosed them more than a year ago. on purpose...


again Mapes did not make up anything. you are ignorant to state this. You have NO proof that she made anything up in fact the proof is there it was proven she was given the documents. You just do not know what you are talking about......

again please take the tin foil off your hands and answer the issue that the secretary remembered these issues from way back when they happened, and a second person who knew Killian also remembers it. that Killian was upset with the upstairs pressure to rate a guy that was in my words AWOL. what about this fact do you not understand.

Again the standard is much higher than was being reported on Clinton by those on the right like Rush and the media. As we know nearly all back then were talking about information given to them by a reporter by the name of David Brock, He was working for Rev Moon and richard Mellon scaife at the time. Two of the very partisan right who owned media and contributed huge amounts of money to media causes. Huge, in fact Scaife paid for all of Paula Jones initial costs for her lawsuit and her nose job. I think she got her boob job by Guicioni . In fact the media ran stories of his and quoted David for years, specially the right wing media. In fact supreme court Justice Clarance was even one patting David on the back for his lies and fabrications he printed. and as we know David later fessed up he was not printing the items with journalistic integrity of any sort. He has tried to apologize to many he lied about same with another on the right, Lee Atwater after getting cancer tried to apologizes to some he did wrong to and they would not accept his apology. Now where was that firing for Rush and all putting these lies on the air. see the source of these did come clean, so we know they shouldn't have been on the air??????? read "blinded by the right" a former republican come clean, it is possible.

For a guy with your resume you'd think you'd be smart enough, especially after being told so many times... RUSH LIMBAUGH IS NOT A JOURNALIST!!! RUSH LIMBAUGH IS NOT A JOURNALIST!!! RUSH LIMBAUGH IS NOT A JOURNALIST!!! RUSH LIMBAUGH IS NOT A JOURNALIST!!!

Comparing Rush Limbaugh to a journalist is like comparing an Apple and White-Out.

Mary Mapes is not a journalist Mary Mapes is not a journalist!!!!!!!!!!

either are any of the talking mouths on TV. they read what is on the teleprompter.... are you the decider here?

and yes I use the Bush doctrine of peat and repeat as it works so well for his base, after all he is the decider. I just do not pay others to repeat it in the media like he did, does.

http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/bushisms/index.html

No, the "decider" in the Rather/Mapes case is CBS News. They hired both as professional journalists and expected them to act like professional journalists. It this case, both failed and failed miserably. The fact that the "memos" they based a national news story on had so many questions surface so quickly about their evidence's veracity, and they didn't have an answer for those questions proves they didn't adequately check their facts prior to the report. Journalism 101.

Now, you can rant and rave and stamp your feet all you want to here about George W. Bush and "righties" in general and how bad they are and "invent" all kinds of theories. I am beginning to expect that from you. But, you're not a journalist and you're not putting on a news story on national television. The standards for doing that are much higher.


Aquilla

Boy this one is really easy.

what is or should be a higher standard, the president putting in items into his state of the union address or what journalists who have very limited resources to verify documents. Whereas the president of the united states has the CIA, NSA FBI and tons more alphabet soup to verify the validity of documents.

Here we have the CIA telling the president he can NOT say we have documents that support the Niger documents were real. And we have a fact that those documents the person who signed them had left office was years before those documents had a date on them. And the president had it put in his state of the union even though told not to..... and did the president get fired for these documents did the right demand a cleansing of the house?


Now what makes it even better is the white house used trumped up information and cherry picked it to go to war. And again this was even acceptable. again what is curveballs reputation. What is chialabies reputation. One was convicted of major theft and these are credible sources to go to war or even be used for anything. My your journalism standards and demand for firing are higher than going to war. It is truly amazing.

And again it is your and the rights oppinion that the information that presented was false we do not know that until we get a independent council, and again to date you have and no one on the right will debate the issue that two independent people that knew Killian at the time and were aware of the issue going on as far as the pressure put on him to falsify military records. Did this information that only two people in the world knew as true osmosis to whoever gave CBS that document. or was it channeled from above as the right have done.


wow stamp my feet...invent.... And I can tell you are just a lemming... if the right tells you to jump you jump in step... or you are willing to lie for them.

You continue to ignore in this thread, a thread YOU started the questions YOU posed. Let me remind you of those......



This case is about whether or not Dan Rather or CBS violated the contract between the two. The question comes down to whether or not Dan Rather followed professional journalistic standards like fact-checking prior to airing this story on a national news broadcast. Did he rigorously follow the basic standards that all professional journalists are bound, by contract to follow? Did he do the Who, What, When, Where and Why test? Did he have bullet-proof evidence that these memos were true? That's the journalistic standard. If he failed to uphold that standard, then he was in the one in breech of his contract with CBS. Has nothing to do with the Niger documents.

Aquilla

WRONG sir. Here is what Rather said.


Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/...ain644546.shtml


His later claim is that he was not the one who vouched for the forged documents and said they were ok to use – a LIE.

And I would argue in court that if the president/government with all the alphabet soup can assume documents from nations were real when the guy had not been in office in 5-10 years when the CIA said it could not vouch it was authentic and was told how is a journalist who can not force testimony and does not have 100s of handwriting experts on hand suppose to tell. and remember they had the person who said he did in fact use his connections to get Bush out of jail and the guard free so to speak. and they had the secretary who remembered the incident. how did it get on paper, as I keep asking you, osmosis, channeled? To me it appears there are some major double standards here argued from the right. It is a fact two other people remembered it, in the theory it appears this paper knew to rise from the dead with accurate facts from no-where.... this is as I said several billion to one odds, which I think meets the requirement for the death penalty so should make it here.



Ted, for the second or third time, read the Rather summery document for his justification for a lawsuit, he explains this very well. This was a negotiated statement with the CBS lawyers and him. Remember he does read a teleprompter, and they can fire him for not rreading and doing what they tell him to do. As he said the lawyered up statement was made via CBS which they agreed to get to the truth if he would go on air with the CBS lawyed up position. But as he said they did not get to the bottom of it, they hired two Bush related people to investigate, one worked with Bush1. They never said the document were proven false either. And we know now that the President of CBS allegedly stated to the effect at that time that the republicans are better for CBS. In other words they had a financial interest in making Dan look bad because the Bush administration would reward them even more which they have with more media consolidation for them.

That’s what he says now and its crap and he knows it. His law suite will fail miserably. He was and is one of the most biased liberal “heads” ever to grace the tube. And it just so happens Rather’s daughter is from TX and a Dem activist.

The tough, tenacious Ronnie Earle often boasts of his close relationship with former Texas Governor Ben Barnes and Robin Rather and they are listed as supporters and contributors to his reelection campaigns. Barnes is the man who on CBS's 60 Minutes told newsman Dan Rather he pulled strings to get President Bush into the National Guard, and Robin Rather is Dan Rather's daughter, a Democrat activist in Texas. The former CBS anchor is suspected of working closely with the Texas Democrat Committee and in fact it was Texas from which the famous Rathergate forged documents emanated. Rather was forced to resign from CBS after bloggers exposed his prima facie evidence against Bush as a fraud.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493550/posts


So give me a break. You just stick to the imaginary “scanner” theory. Do you even know the “government” doesn’t make scanners and if there was one it would be commercially available – please post the data sheet for us - thanks

Ben Barnes had no choice but to tell about it when the links to Karen Hughes and the texas lottery payoff were occurring. Barnes told the truth and had to go on record in a court case is where he told it. So he can be convicted of perjury.

The most biased people to ever be on the tube are like Tucker Carlson, O'Riely, Hanity, Beck, et al and so on. Not a hour goes by where they are not putting their ultra partisan spin on everything. I know you are going to say they are not journalists, gee then they need to work for Fox Un-news unfair and un-balanced and stop lying about what fox is. Remember the white house declared the male escort Gannon A journalist with his weekend several hour course he took at the religious right school of journalism. he has several hundred white house passes.

again Bush could have ordered a independent council to investigate which I believe we should have to end the questions here, we need a grand jury to get to the bottom of it. Since this is a huge lie by the right we need the truth to show that journalism is alive and well in america. After all it took how many years before we got a independent council in Watergate. And the same logic was from the right back then, it was a waste of time and money. Ever listen to the un-erased parts of the Nixon tapes. holly molly is that guy a scum of the earth criminal with his political dictator style investigations of his political enemy's and arab money payoffs. And we have the same sort of payoffs with the texas lottery to keep Barns quiet but another company sued and deposed barnes who chose not to lie. If you think barnes was lying get an independent council. Make my day.

as far as the scanner, I already showed you that the Republican Rep Dukester who was convicted of taking several million in bribes from his buddy who has 100 million in government/military contracts in scanning documents. His company specialized in OCR. If you are inferring that republicans company delivered nothing for the 100 million in defense contracts like nothing was delivered in Iraq with empty trucks but charged for full trucks I will not debate that issue. Or like the recent 4-10 billion in the new spy satellite system that nothing is going to be delivered again I will not debate that.

A bit of an update, CBS has filed a motion to vacate last week. They said for one he was too late so statute of limitations ran out. What a waste of court time, they darn well know that he has one year from the time he finds out or should have known they did him wrong. Ie from the time a lawyer gives you an opinion is the time frame where the clock generally starts.. But as we see it probably is a delay tactic in holding off discovery.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21826504/



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/16/n...er_n_72979.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/20...t/index_np.html

Here is an outline of basically everything I claimed it had the capability of doing. Seems I am on the right track and obviously Dan is to. All I can say is do not settle and no judge had better allow seal on all the discovery, after all there is no way one can claim it to be damaging or confidential when the entire right claims these is made up. But watch my words they are going to want the entire thing to be confidential. and the second they do we know that the right is afraid of the truth be told.

Unfortunately (for you) there are not enough grossly left biased “heads” like Rather left? And contrary to your bogus logic most people think Fox is not as biased as other Media.

The vast majority of American voters detect the presence of political bias in the mainstream news media, according to a Zogby poll released yesterday in conjunction with the George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.

Sentiment is strong: 83 percent of likely voters think bias is "alive and well." Of that number, 64 percent said the press leans left, while slightly more than a quarter -- 28 percent -- said there was a conservative bias.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070315-114454-8075r.htm
Media Bias
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics4.asp





Come on get off the wild un supported conspiracy crap and show me something. Every OCR scanner that ever existed is documented. Tell us what was used and how please.



Have no clue here? Some new conspiracy? Links or just your paranoia?

Ted, very interesting- you think McClellen is lying about "outing" Valerie Plame, and that Bush has no culpability for the "yellow cake" lie/forged documents- however, you believe Dan Rather "made up and forged" the Bush document.

The burden of proof is set impossibly high for GW, and impossibly low for Dan Rather- and you wonder why conservatives these days have so little credibility>

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that GW avoided his service just like Dan Rather said he did on the original broadcast- it is no stretch if you understand the nature of "rich kids" service during the vietnam war- it was dem and repub to be fair- after all, Loyd Bentson's son got the same treatment.

However, you have to be pretty stupid, I mean outright moronic, to not see that the Niger document was a forgery- I mean, didn't have the right ministers name on it

However, Inventors explanatiobn of font recognation software is very plausible- what is NOT plausible that anyone short of a vegetable would believe the Niger document- heck, I still get a Nigerian scam letter in my junk mail box to this date.

CruisingRam, you are making the same mistake that Joe Wilson made. What Bush said in the State of the Union speech - the famous "16 words" were "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

link


Remember, the Iraqi that went on the trade mission in 1999 was Wissam al Zawahie, whom the IAEA calls "one of the chief Iraqi advocates for the development of nuclear weapons by that country." I don't suppose he was there to buy ... what else does Niger export, anyway -- Millet? Sorgum?

Joe Wilson leaked to the Washington Post that the "names and dates were wrong" on the Niger documents (just like you just said) but was reminded by the Senate committee that he didn't see those documents before describing them to the Washington Post. Then he testified to the SSIC that he "misspoke." Uh huh.

At the risk of actually discussing the topic at hand in this thread instead of the normal Bush-bashing that's become the staple for some here, I will one again remind people that this lawsuit has nothing to do with the Niger documents, what Bush said in the State of the Union address about them or whether or not Bush "lied and people died" at all. What it does address is whether or not Dan Rather shirked his contractual responsibilities as a journalist for CBS News by airing a story that had a flawed foundation.



It took Dan Rather over TWO YEARS to figure out he'd been removed as the CBS News anchor? And he had to ask a lawyer about it? The only waste of court time in all of this is Rather's bizarre lawsuit in the first place. Then again, it does bolster the selling price of tin futures.


Aquilla

to know you were illegally swindled to be legally addressable in a court can only be answered by a lawyer. From the time the lawyer tells you it is addressable is your time line. It is an important issue that we as a society to me have a right to know. As I have pointed out peoples careers were ruined and damaged. And more importantly it effects the societies perception of the media. the media to me is the 4 arm of government in protection of democracy. If the reporters are afraid to give reports like this it harms out society if it was, as I believe accurate.

again the point being as far as the niger documents and an argument on this accurate, if the president has lower standards why are the people on the right so bent up on items that people are not dying for, vs what the free press states? Whom should have to tell the truth of national government issues; the president or media, who has better resources to determine the truth. Again the CIA had requested this not to be said in the state of the union address. what more does one need. Does GW know more than the CIA?


now these are from freedom of information requests, documents were released.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/59/19157




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/...ain563507.shtml

Keep in mind that Rather doesn't appear to be thinking rationally at this point. link


Paranoia, conspiracy, anger seem to be part of Rather's persona. He actually wore a t-shirt that said "FTW" under his suit during his last broadcast.

No one believes that these documents are authentic. No one old enough to remember what documents looked like in the early 1970's, anyway. Except Dan Rather. Whether inventor's OCR thing is possible is a moot point, because no one anywhere has asserted that these documents were ever scanned. They were obviously done in Microsoft Word with standard settings.

He had none and the issue was not important in going to war. What is important for Dems and liberals like you is it is one minor issue that we can not find a Dem saying was a threat from Iraq. This, and only this, is why it is even mentioned.



Come on Rather is as guiltly as sin in this and everyone knows it – even his liberal co workers. He will lose his silly law suite imo.


The document aside the Brits still say there was a connection. Niger IS a major supplier of “yellow cake”

http://mostlyafrica.blogspot.com/2004/06/n...cake-story.html


No what is not possible is anyone with half a brain would not have noticed the Rather document was made on a PC with Word. This liberal idiot was so desperate to hit Bush he just took it as real.

Ted, you have convicted Dan because he also did a retraction that he said he wished he had not given that information. You took this to be a admission of guilt. As I said it was a lawyered statement that was a comprimise with the CBS lawyers for CBS or they would have fired him.

Now how do you justify the admission the President lied and when he gave the speech other wise I wouldn't have put it in the speech. and we know as a fact they had removed it and he put it back in, so he is lying here. But in essence he is admitting the information was not accurate otherwise he would not have made such a statement, he just did not know later it would come out that the CIA had pulled that information.. and more he can not be fired he is the president much different than Dans position. Dan was not president he was an employee who was manipulated by the CBS so that they would receive favorable government decisions to further their greed, not the truthfulness of the media. CBS should lose their license to broadcast on our airwaves for their hatred of the truth.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/...ain563507.shtml



again you have not given one plausible explanation how this Killian information could have been known, and how two independent people have stated they remember this situation of the pressure on Killian. Did Dan channel this from above like Bush is capable of doing. Only two living people knew about it, and obviously a document was there. and both had said no-one had asked them about till the AWOLgate broadcast. Please do tell me how this is possible without divine intervention that Bush says he is capable of doing.

Once again, inventor, you attempt to derail this thread, a thread you started by deflecting the issue of Dan Rather's sloppy journalism and whether or not CBS News was justified in removing him as the CBS Evening News anchor. This has nothing to do with the State of the Union Address, Niger yellow cake , nor your obvious distain for President Bush. What is has to do with is the complete lack of professional competency on the part of Dan Rather. You raised the questions, why won't you debate them instead of running off on all kinds of quite frankly bizarre tangents?


Aquilla

No Dan convicted himself by trying to pass the phoney document – and I believe he may have even suspected it was a phony but thought he could get it past us. He is toast in any case and will be crushed in this lawsuite imo.

Are you really serious that you do not see the relavance of the argument of a President using a forged document that he was told by the CIA to remove from the state of the union address as a war cry because they could not with the power of the entire US governement make such a claim and the docuemnts that were supported by not only handwriting experts as well as other facts that looked like it at the time. That there is a higher threshhold for a journalist according to your standards than going to war.

Believe me I would certainly argue this point in court.

Wow bizarre tangents in your book... ohhh such ludicrous claims... Lets see if you can get this tangent, just because you do not understand it does not mean others can not.

Now again for the umth time, I have challenged you to rectify the FACT that two people the only two alive that knew of it have come forward and said the issues of someone coming over Killians head was running interference and forcing a good rating for a flunkie. Again how in the world could anyone have known this without a real document in the records. Again Kilians secretary and another have come forward to agree this was accurate. please channel to me how any human on the face of the earth could have forged this accurate document as these two people had never talked to an living human about it.

And again we had a college professor on record years before this election cycle saying Bush actually bragged about his connections that make him a spoiled brat of privilege in the face of a professor. Didn't Bush also have a episode of animal mutilation like Huckabee's son of privilege, from what I have hear Huckabee may also pulled some strings for his 18 year son, like Bush's father did for him too. do you see the patterns here.

http://wonkette.com/politics/teh-huckabeez...dent-334572.php

I fail to understand why the self-professed really smart guy and captain of his grade school chess team can't seem to address the actual questions that HE posed for debate in this thread.




Nothing in there about Niger Yellowcake. Wanna talk about that, inventor, start a thread on it.
Nothing in there about Huckabee's son. Wanna talk about that, inventor, start a thread on it.

What's so difficult about that for you to understand? This thread, started by you is about the demotion and subsequent lawsuit filed by Dan Rather against CBS. You've railed about everything else under the sun but that. Time to get a grip, dude.


Aquilla

Now see I have always learned in life that it is those who whine like Bush that are the ones losing the debate, Seems I must be winning the debate of facts or why would people be crying foul. If you do not have the intellectual ability to debate why don't you go pull a bush and cry to the professor you have connections to keep you out of trouble. Oh you are.

Yes there are some of in the real world who get things done with our hard work, and then there are some people who a whining idiots who used daddy to get things done. Now I am proud of my self made past of captain of the undefeated football team, proud of being a basically straight a student, proud of my being captain of a conference champion wrestling team, proud of my one loss wrestling season, proud of being a state placing chess player, proud of my volunteer work I do, proud of being VP of Engineering, director of R&D, proud of the patents I have, proud of the many international and national awards I have. and much more. See I did not buy one thing by special privilege, I worked hard to get my positions, I was not a drunken child till I was 40 ish. Now what I am not proud of is this idiot Bush who failed at everything in his life and because of daddy he got away with everything and will not fess up with his lies and use of privilege. He has a pattern in his life and Dan Rather brought it to light. this is what this thread is about evidence of a pattern of Bush failures, family influence and not taking responsibility for his actions to this date, with a lawsuit that has the capability of unraveling some of those facts. again Bush had the power to get a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of these issues and he did not do it. So it is up to Dan to get us the truth. He is willing to spend millions of his own money not being backed by a bunch of rich cry baby kids who inherited their money, like Richard Mellon Scaife, Olins, Coors and so on.

For sake of argument, let's say that everything you say is true. Every word. Bush has a 'pattern in his life' and everything. Son of privilege. Doesn't own up to his own responsibility. Up to Dan to get to the truth.

The problem is that Dan didn't "get to the truth" when he presented obviously forged documents on television in an effort to sway the election. The stories concocted by the sources for Dan's "evidence" are so convoluted as to be laughable. His behavior was not rational, as I noted in my last post. That doesn't meet the standard for network news. So Dan got demoted. And he is suing.

None of this has anything to do with appointing a "special prosecutor." Bush is a public figure, so everyone can pretty much print almost any lies about him and they won't be prosecuted or sued. Not worth the time.

In answer to your questions, it looks like Dan will get his day in court, and his strategy will be to create a huge conspiracy at CBS news, when one probably never existed. Will a jury of his peers believe this based on a preponderance of the evidence (civil suit standard for facts) - maybe. 1/3 of Democrats think that 9/11 was an inside job, and the jurisdiction will certainly help Mr. Rather, so anything is possible.

I have to say, just in general on facts and sourcing, you never cease to disappoint. Usually you source things like lefty agitprop site "truth" out, home of Jason (Rove was indicted!!!11!!1!!) Leopold, or more mainstream angry left like Huffington Post. But now we have reached a new low with wonkette, a site best known for a certain kind of sex joke. For you to opine on standards in journalism in this thread is so ironic I can't get over it.

Was there no yellowcake in Iraq?

none whatsoever?

wow... I didnt know

please elaborate

Please do tell, do you believe the story that wonkette reported is accurate or not. If it is accurate then you are a fool to say they are not. Lets lets find out who has the greater credibility you or them. Or it is just the msm is not willing to put out the Huckabee story considering a football player just went to jail for an incident that is similar in scope. Did Daddy Huckabee use his influence in protecting his son. Like dady Bush one for Georges insider trading, after all George was told he could not act n the insider information he received and sell his stock. And there were some drug and drunk driving issues as well as the military issues. So did Dad take care of the silver spoon kids.

Now will you answer/speculate to the question of how in the world the information contained in the documents was accurate according to two people who remember these incidents to this day, that Killian was having a hard time from people above. Did dan rather channel from above to get this information that is not available to any human being unless it is in the real documents Killian wrote. Please tell us if Dems too can channel from above. Again only two living people would have been privy to this and they did not tell anyone till after the Rather outing of Bush. So please 2 in several billion people on the planet would have known, how the f did it get in the document accurately....

How something, inaccurately or not, got into a document that someone wrote in Microsoft Word 2002, passed to a disturbed Democratic activist ex-guardsman by a "dark complected" guy (Who wasn't Lucy Ramirez) at a livestock show ... then the guy went to Kinko's, maybe copied the docs a few times to make them look old, then faxed Mary Mapes ... really doesn't matter. What matters is that Ms. Mapes Dan Rather presented it on the CBS Network News and it was a forgery. Breaching the terms of their employment agreement and resulting in his demotion.

The minutae that you are arguing simply doesn't matter. He didn't meet the standard for fact-checking, and admittedly rushed the story to air. The obvious motive being to impact the Presidential election towards a Democrat, whom he supports.

No they did have hand writing experts read it.. and verify that his handwriting is there, and again you do not know that this is not the format the government has it stored in and with my point that it is over a billion in one that these details could have been known by another party I think a billion to one is sufficient for journalism and actually I would bet a conviction in court.

Now if you are talking fact checking read the book by a former ultra right reporter who has outed himself. He was paid by the hard core right who own media, that being Rev Moon, who had his Monies begging/panhandling at airports, and the trust fund kid Scaife. Scaife was paying him to write trash in the tune of a million a book for trashing. As Mr. Brock claimed. As the book says "blinded by the Right" he was not verifying his crapola the right was paying him to put out in the washington times. Even a supreme court justice was a big fan of his trash... and he even had the main stream media including Rush and so on repeating his lies and trash. So when you demonstrate that moral supreemicy you seem to be taking on this case ie high horse and fire Rush and so on I may actually believe in your moral argument. But the facts are there, many people not only remember these events but one even reported he was one of the people doing the favor for the child of privilege.

well well a good 2008.... judge decides discovery will move forward.... time for CBS execs to lawyer up and Bush et al to to get ready to plead the 5th.... now I find it interesting that there were noted documents between the white house and network executives... WOW.... geee

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/01/photo...reaking_it.html

You have GOT to read the comments section... they brutalize Rather et al.

I did not read many but it was interesting to see how none of them picked up on the stated inference that CBS execs were communicating with the white house over this issue... why would the white house be communicating with CBS behind closed doors on a issue the right maintain was not true and made up. seems funny they missed this interesting issue.

got to hope it is normal discovery that is very open ended to the issue.... and the white house having talks of any kind towards that broadcast are certainly fair game to his firing...

did the white house give some evidence? ya right...

My guess as to what will come out of discovery:
* Dan Rather and his producer desperately searching for an expert who would authenticate the documents, and failing.
* CBS executives nervously "standing by their reporter" for weeks, as the documents' authenticity became increasingly indefensible.

What we won't get to see, because the Rethuglikkkans have destroyed the evidence:
* The CIA paying shills to insist that the documents are real, despite all expert opinion to the contrary, in an attempt to discredit liberals and Democrats.

Hmmm... by all means, bring on the Independent Counsel!

wow your reply was so enlightning,

First you demonstrated your complete ignorance. so much so that it is laughable. discovery does not search for an expert who would authenticate the documents. anyone can do that anytime they want. It appears you talk from your you know what.

And discovery will not show execs standing by their reporters, we already know they brought in two so called independent people who had ties to the right, so unbiased?. Bringing in a Bush 1 friend is about as stupid as you can get. I would fire any moron who thought a Bush1 friend could be un-biased. Gee why didn't we let one of Saddams old henchmen determine if Saddam was a good person. daaaaaaaaaa again who decided on putting Bush insiders into this decision-investigation? now that is what discovery can determine. did the white house pick them?

but yes lets get an independent council to go after all the issues before us. see I was for the one on clinton, but when he came back after 10s of millions spent and found no wrong doing, well to me that was enough. the right wing was not happy with one right wing independent council, they had to have another partisan idiot with no experience, his only related experience was he gave Paula Jones free legal advice several years earlier and his law firm represented tobacco interests. which by the way Kenny boy Star was receiving once he became independent council a million a year from his law firm doing nothing for them. Amazing how he never made that kind of money before when he had to do billables.

Now yes I would love a independent council to investigate all these things... yes and make sure he is a democrat, I am tired of special prosecutors and independent councils being right wing partisans. kinda the fox watching the hen house.

hopefully you will engage in serious debate not the type you just posted.

Oh please.....

Give it a rest, inventor. Yo have repeatedly come into this thread, one you created and ignored the actual facts surrounding this lawsuit, spun conspiracy after conspiracy and insulted the intelligence of anyone who happens to disagree with your wild tin-hat theories about the "evil right". The FACT of the matter is that Dan Rather wasn't fired by CBS at all, even your own citation in the opening post to this thread indicates that.



Even Rather doesn't make the claims you make. He wasn't fired. He was removed from his role as the "voice of CBS News" because his journalistic integrity had come into question. He had reported a story that he couldn't prove was true. You have offered an explanation for why the documents in question might have had the font/spacing problem they had, but you're not Dan Rather. He's probably not as smart as you are because he never offered that explanation. He went to air with a story that wasn't journalistically sound. Now you and your fellow tinfoil conventioneers may think it's true, but that doesn't make it so when it comes to the standards of network journalism. Once a reporter loses their credibility as happened with Dan Rather, they become "damaged goods" and can no longer act as the "face" of a network news organization.


That's what this is really all about. (and please don't post your resume again, we've all read it)


Aquilla

I know what discovery is. It's when you're in a lawsuit, and the lawyers crawl up your "you know what" to look for documents that might be vaguely related to the case. It's disruptive enough to a company that they'll often pay to settle a lawsuit, even if there's no merit to it.

Look, maybe you're right, and the discovery process will turn up a secret conspiracy between CBS executives and the White House. I think it's more likely that the documents will tell a story like the one I outlined above: Dan Rather and crew were desperately trying to authenticate the documents after the story was aired, while CBS executives ran interference for them for almost two weeks.


I assume that you're attempting to smear Dick Thornburg and Louis Boccardi here. Thornburgh was forever tainted by his service as Attorney General under Reagan and Bush twenty years ago. Boccardi is an award-winning journalist and former head of the Associated Press. They produced a 200-page report detailing how Rather and crew screwed up the 60 Minutes story in question.