Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (17403)	9/23/2004 1:18:52 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Let's can Rather, then invade France.

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (17403)	9/23/2004 10:17:17 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I've heard the call that he should be banned from TV. No, he should be fired by his employer (a choice they should make in their own self-interest) and investigated for possible criminal acts in his role in the forged document fiasco. So he was duped by a forged document. No, he was a willing participant in a possibly criminal conspiracy to broadcast a fraudulent news story based on forged government documents in an attempt to affect the outcome of an election. "Duped" is a thinly veiled attempt to paint him as an innocent victim, which he is not. At the same time Bush and Cheney were duped by a forged document regarding the uranium from Niger Those documents were not the basis for British intelligence reporting of Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Niger and you know it. You guys don't make sense. You don't HAVE sense.

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (17403)	9/23/2004 10:22:40 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 90947

Let's examine your statements. You say Rather was "duped" by a forged document and then compare this with Bush and Cheney being "duped" by a forged document regarding uranium from Niger. First, my criticism of Rather was that he didn't undertake the type of analysis regarding the documents that would be dictated by any kind of journalistic standards. He also ignored advices from at least a couple of document experts who questioned the authenticity of the documents before they were aired. Instead, he relied on a handwriting expert who admitttedly did not vouch for the authenticity of the documents but analyzed only the signatures. His producer Mapes engaged in similarly questionable conduct. The documents at issue were purportedly 30 years old and from the personal file of a man deceased for 20 years. Anyone with half a brain would realize that authenticating such documents so long after the fact would be difficult. Why would anyone even have them? is one question that comes readily to mind. Bottom line: if Rather were "duped" as you say, it's because he wanted the documents to be valid and therefore failed to take appropriate measures to be sure. He even personally vouched for the documents when he knew he had no legitimate basis on which to do so. A reporter/ journalist has control over the sources he uses for his story and can comply with journalistic standards before airing the story. Sure it's possible for a reporter to be "duped", but I'll only give him the benefit of the doubt if he followed a reasonable mode of inquiry. Rather did not because he did not want to. Simeple as that. I'm unclear as to your reference to Niger documents. Is that something you picked up from Joe Wilson? If so, Wilson's interpretation of the Niger/uranium situation was debunked by the CIA, as I recall. I can't remember if that was part of the 9/11 report, but it may have been in that context that I read about. Got a link for your reference? I don't think it's a fair comparison to evaluate what a president/V.P. make of current foreign documents in the same way you evaluate a reporter's story. The Chief Executive must rely on intelligence from many sources. He can't be involved in personally conducting the investigation or talking to sources. He has to rely on an enormous bureaucracy to collect and evaluate copious intelligence. Folks like you also claimed that Bush failed to stop 9/11 based on oblique intelligence about terrorists using airplanes. Exactly what he could have done in light of that generalized information has never been satisfactorily explained. However, here, you're complaining that he acted on information that turned out to be wrong. Intelligence and dealing with foreign countries/ terrorists is no exact science. Your attempt at a comparison here holds no water IMO. Nice try, though. :-) btw, I hope CBS doesn't nudge out Rather. He's shown his true colors(i.e. bias) and therefore can be used as a barometer in that regard. His credibility is shot. No wonder CBS sought Burkett who had similarly been discredited in the past. Blew up in their faces.

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (17403)	9/23/2004 10:33:34 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 90947

Let's examine your statements. You say Rather was "duped" by a forged document and then compare this with Bush and Cheney being "duped" by a forged document regarding uranium from Niger. First, my criticism of Rather was that he didn't undertake the type of analysis regarding the documents that would be dictated by any kind of journalistic standards. He also ignored advices from at least a couple of document experts who questioned the authenticity of the documents before they were aired. Instead, he relied on a handwriting expert who admittedly did not vouch for the authenticity of the documents but analyzed only some signatures. (That expert also knew he was looking at generations old photocopies and his own writings indicate that a valid analysis requires access to originals. Burkett has since claimed that he destroyed the originals, which should raise a red flag to anyone.) His producer Mapes engaged in similarly questionable conduct. The documents at issue were purportedly 30 years old and from the personal file of a man deceased for 20 years. Anyone with half a brain would realize that authenticating such documents so long after the fact would be difficult. Why would anyone even have them? is one question that comes readily to mind. Bottom line: if Rather were "duped" as you say, it's because he wanted the documents to be valid and therefore failed to take appropriate measures to be sure. He even personally vouched for the documents when he knew he had no legitimate basis on which to do so. A reporter/ journalist has control over the sources he uses for his story and can comply with journalistic standards before airing the story. Sure it's possible for a reporter to be "duped", but I'll only give him the benefit of the doubt if he followed a reasonable mode of inquiry. Rather did not because he did not want to. Simple as that. I'm unclear as to your reference to Niger documents. Is that something you picked up from Joe Wilson? If so, Wilson's interpretation of the Niger/uranium situation was debunked by the CIA, as I recall. I can't remember if that was part of the 9/11 report, but it may have been in that context that I read about. Got a link for your reference? I don't think it's a fair comparison to evaluate what a president/V.P. make of current foreign documents in the same way you evaluate a reporter's story. The Chief Executive must rely on intelligence from many sources. He can't be involved in personally conducting the investigation or talking to sources. He has to rely on an enormous bureaucracy to collect and evaluate copious intelligence. Folks like you also claimed that Bush failed to stop 9/11 based on oblique intelligence about terrorists using airplanes. Exactly what he could have done in light of that generalized information has never been satisfactorily explained. However, here, you're complaining that he acted on information that turned out to be wrong. Intelligence and dealing with foreign countries/ terrorists is no exact science. Your attempt at a comparison here holds no water IMO. Nice try, though. :-) btw, I hope CBS doesn't nudge out Rather. He's shown his true colors(i.e. bias) and therefore can be used as a barometer in that regard. His credibility is shot. No wonder CBS sought Burkett who had similarly been discredited in the past. Blew up in their faces.