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: Suma who wrote (24574)	1/3/2005 6:33:35 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Suma, Please answer the following hypothetical question. If Prez Bush went out & told a series of horrific lies about a political opponent during an election campaign that would be devastating to their re-election chances. Then he: - claimed his staff had thoroughly investigated the allegations & insisted it was all true; - then built on the initial lies to draw additional false conclusions; - told the lies on national TV repeatedly, - insisted that he had "unimpeachable sources" who had verified that accuracy of all of the lies, - viciously attacked the credibility & integrity of anyone who challenged the veracity of his lies, - continued to insist his lies & the story they were built upon were 100% accurate, even as evidence mounted proving his story was built completely on lies, - lie about numerous experts who warned him that his original lies were really lies before he went public with the story, - repeatedly lie & misrepresent the results from other experts who never validated the original lies, - as the lies became too evident to ignore, insist that even though the story was built on nothing but lies, the story itself was "fake but accurate" & - finally, when the evidence became overwhelming that it was nothing but lies, deceit & intentional misrepresention; - Bush goes public with an apology stating only that he was sorry he didn't fact check a little better, but ignores everything else he did & said & the harm it caused: Would you forgive him unconditionally like you have forgiven Dan Rather? Be honest now.

To: Suma who wrote (24574)	1/3/2005 6:50:46 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"In other words, if your wife does something that you deem inappropriate and apologizes you will accept that apology predicated on what the deed was." If my wife did something inappropriate, then completely on her own genuinely apologized for the inappropriate act, I would forgive her. However, if my wife did something inappropriate, then lied & lied & lied about it, viciously attacked everyone who exposed her lies, tried to cling to her lies by spinning some cockamamy story & finally gave in when it was obvious she had been caught red handed, but only apologized for getting caught, I would not forgive her.

To: Suma who wrote (24574)	1/3/2005 6:57:07 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

"When I gave Rather's name it was because he did on pubic TV apologize." My challenge was in regards to genuine apologies where the person admits everything they did wrong & takes full responsibility for all the harm they caused. Dan Rather has never genuinely apologized for the forged documents story, how he handled it, nor has he taken full responsibility for the harm he caused.

To: Suma who wrote (24574)	1/3/2005 7:08:08 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

"Then we got into the fact that Bush has never apologized..." You have the cart before the horse. What has Bush done that would require an apology? Please be specific. We know what Dan Rather did. Rather stuck to his guns & repeatedly attacked a sitting President during an election campaign with obviously gorged documents & a series of lies & intentional misrepresentations. He has yet to offer an apology commensurate with those utterly reprehensible actions. And Rather has yet to accept full responsibility for what he attempted to do.

To: Suma who wrote (24574)	1/3/2005 7:11:42 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

"You had said a Democrat had never apologized for anything. I was naming one who had." I never said any such thing. That's a fact. And you have yet to name a legitimate apology from a dem.

To: Suma who wrote (24574)	1/3/2005 7:21:07 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"and another topic emerged and I used WMD as an example.. one of his not having leveled the playing field in his rush into IRAQ." Huh? I have proven nine ways to Sunday that Iraq was not just about "stockpiles" of WMD's. That is an irrefutable fact. Saddam's removal was legal & justified. That's a fact. Please explain to me what you meant by "rush into IRAQ". UN Resolution #687 was more than 12 years old when Saddam was removed. Saddam had been in utter defiance of it the entire time. That is an irrefutable fact. UN Resolution #687 was the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement. Any violation of it meant that a resumption of hostilities would be legal & justified. Saddam defied UN Resolution #1441 for 5 months before he was removed. UN Resolution #1441 was irrefutably tied to UN Resolution #687. Please prove to me that Bush "rush(ed) into IRAQ".

To: Suma who wrote (24574)	1/10/2005 11:07:49 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Now that the CBS Investigation Report is out, you may want to read about Dan Rather's faux apology (see the first Update below). And keep in mind that they are quoting directly from CBS' Report. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CBS Report: Not Quite a Whitewash LGF The long-awaited CBS Report is out -- and Little Green Footballs is still offline due to the DDOS attack on the Hosting Matters network. Here's the article on the report at CBS News; the only one to be fired is, as many suspected, Mary Mapes, although three other CBS employees were "asked to resign." The report's large, and has a surprising amount of meat in it; it's not the total whitewash some expected. I'm still reading, but Sarah D. points out a really damning passage strongly indicating that Mapes was trying to "change the momentum of the election," as Mapes associate Michael Smith proposes getting Bill Burkett a book deal: <<< Today I am going to send the following hypothetical scenario to a reliable, trustable editor friend of mine . . . What if there was a person who might have some information that could possibly change the momentum of an election but we needed to get an ASAP book deal to help get us the information? What kinds of turnaround payment schedules are possible, keeping in mind the book probably could not make it out until after the election . . . . What I am asking is in this best case hypothetical scenario, can we get a decent sized advance payment, and get it turned around quickly. >>> The report explicitly denies that political bias was a factor in the pattern of lying and covering up that followed the initial 60 Minutes II segment, but it's quite obvious this is another obfuscation. I'm still reading, and will have more thoughts as I continue to absorb it; but this is going to give the blogosphere a lot to chew over. (Thanks to evariste for allowing me to post at Discarded Lies!) UPDATE: If you had a suspicion that Dan Rather's apology on September 20 was ... uh, less than sincere, you were right: <<< The Panel asked Rather about his interview with Marcia Kramer. Rather said that he did not want to do the interview or the apology on September 20, but Heyward and Schwartz asked him to do so. Rather said that he made his case as to why an apology was not appropriate and that management did not agree with him. Rather agreed to do the apology on September 20 and the Marcia Kramer interview because he is a “team player.” Rather informed the Panel that he still believes the content of the documents is true because “the facts are right on the money,” and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic. It is clear that Rather’s joining in the apology given his role as the correspondent on the Segment and his status as CBS News’ most visible presence was critical to its acceptance. The Panel finds his comments disavowing the apology to be troubling, notwithstanding that he said he regarded himself as carrying out what CBS News felt was in its best interest on September 20. >>> UPDATE: Sarah D. points out another juicy section of the report, as CBS execs became aware that none of their experts would authenticate the memos and exchanged increasingly heated emails: <<< This prompted an immediate reaction from Schwartz: 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: [F]OR THE 100TH TIME, THE “TH” ISSUE IS GONE. WE HAVE EXAMPLES FROM THE “OFFICIAL” WHITE HOUSE DOCS. WE’RE SET. >>> After which her boss fired back: <<< The problem, Mary, is one of perception. As far as the press is concerned, the “th” issue is NOT gone. It’s very much alive, and they have people crawling all over it. If we wait to address the issue until tonight’s news, we will DIE in the press tomorrow. Die. As in…dead. You tell me. How do I get the message out RIGHT NOW, as in RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, that the “th” thing is no longer an issue? >>> UPDATE: Michelle Malkin points out Appendix 4 (PDF) to the CBS report, on the web site of Dick Thornburgh's law firm, containing the analysis of another expert, Peter Tytell, who concluded that the documents were (shocka!) produced on a computer with the Times New Roman font! <<< 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. >>> The original report comes to no definitive conclusion about the authenticity of the documents, but Appendix 4 makes this equivocation seem rather odd. by Charles discardedlies.com