Letters to the Editor
Taliesan
Published Letters: 942 Editor's Choice: 19
-
The bias story
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We are told the media has a liberal bias.
We are told education has a liberal bias.
We are told historians have a liberal bias.
We are told scientists have a liberal bias.
We are told artists have a liberal bias.
We are told that America's blogs, which are really the personal thoughts of Americans, have a liberal bias.
I am sure pretty soon we will get told word of mouth has a liberal bias.
By now, I have stopped believing in this so-called liberal bias and started believing that righties just whine when the facts don't fit their views.
-
Groenhagen
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So far as I am aware Clinton never pretended to be anything else.
Bush on the other hand, well, he isn't called Chimpy McFlightsuit for nothing.
Now why does this subject seem to have touched a nerve with you?
-
Groenhagen
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton never really made an issue of tying manhood to war, and his supporters didn't, so far as I am aware, accuse people of not supporting the troops if they didn't support the president.
Clinton never made an issue of being a "War president" and didn't pose as one. I can't remember ever seeing a picture of Clinton in a military uniform.
Clinton, so far as I am aware, did not rise on the back of belittling the military service of others while keeping quiet about his lack of a military record.
Contrast that with Bush vs McCain and Bush vs Kerry, and the swiftboat veterans for truth.
Further, the story was known in 2000 and didn't get much traction precisely because at the time, America was at peace and it didn't matter.
In 2004, the year of Rather's report, the issue mattered one heck of a lot, seen as America was in a war of choice at the time and a major issue in those elections was Kerry's war record. Bush was playing the strong-man and he was pretending to be something he was not, while Kerry was, to be frank about it, being slandered.
-
Groenhagen
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, I hadn't seen those pictures before, but then, like I said, Clinton hadn't exactly made a big deal about it.
Now, the thing that gets me is, first of all I have been reasonably civil towards you and you have adressed every post to me with accusing me of being a liar. Frankly I think you are projecting.
I think you have not served a single minute the military I think you are lying about your service and I think that the reason you are so upset about this story is because it strikes a very personal nerve.
I am unashamed to say I haven't served in America's military, and I do not pretend to have served but your hysterical, harsh tone strikes me as being that of someone faking being something they are not.
I do not think you see this as being a case of hypocrisy. I think you see the link to yourself, and I think your repeated accusations of me being a liar, is nothing short of pure projectionism.
-
Groenhagen
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I caught you out in a lie when you claimed 9/11 as a justification for the Iraq war. You have repeatedly called me a liar with nothing but bullshit to back you up.
I repeat that I think you are a liar, and that you are lying about your military service. I think you feel threatened by this story about Bush because it could just as well be about you.
And I think you are trying to bring up past wrongs, which were not terribly important at the time, to excuse current ones. I think you are a hypocrite.
-
Groenhagen
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When?
Because I just googled that and got a result.
-
Oh, and why use the MOS
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When dealing with a civillian when Intellegence Officer is so much more readily recognisable?
-
Unless he was a faker.
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Guy on another site I post on did exactly the same thing once. What he did was he went onto a certain site dedicated to military veterans, and harvested the details of one of them. Word for word.
Needless to say, when someone had the cheek (Not me, but I really respected the person who did) to enter those details into Google and check, well it all came out word for word.
Now tell me, is the name Farnham familiar to you?
-
Anon
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That illogical trolls like you can get high up in the military is exactly why armed forces scare the shit out of most humans over history.
You are one dumb bastard and that's all I want to say.
--Anonymous
You don't have to fear guys like Groenhagen. Shit, we have all grown up with them. They are all talk, no action.
-
Anonymous
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know its not constructive, but it really irritates me when some two bit fake tries to tell everyone that they served, and that they are more manly men then everyone else for it.
You don't get that from the real military, because they don't have to remind themselves.
Oh, and Groenhagen, one last thing, there is a 0231 in marine group 36, in the 1st Marine Aircraft division, and he is a colonel. Ben Mathews ring any bells?
-
Okay, back on topic
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So what this means is that one of the chief talking points of the right, one of the biggest examples they like to throw around of media bias against them (Much as though it is difficult to think of something the right doesn't accuse of bias) which is generally accepted as a good example, could well be proven totally BS and powerful example demonstrating the opposite bias.
If Rather has strong enough evidence to win this case, which he just might, well it is going to hurt CBS in the same way their decision to not air a certain story about ciggarettes did.
This won't hurt Bush. As has been pointed out, Bush being a screw-up when he was young was kind of well known, but it will hurt the right in ways they could never have foreseen because face it, we would love to see the rightwing Rather mantra put to bed.