Letters to the Editor
-
re: Anonymous
Speculation
sajwan,
"Yes I am being emotional, probably hyperbolic, if not vitriolic. But your speculation that CBS would not fire Rather because it could cost them money is as valid as the speculation they did fire Rather so it would not cost them money. At a certain point, the focus was no longer on the content of the 60 minutes piece but instead shifting to questioning the integrity of CBS.
That's why my hope is that Rather does not go for a settlement, no matter how tempting, and he forces this to trial where all the laundry comes out. Then we no longer need to speculate."
Well given that Mr. Rather has stated he will NOT settle out of court, I would assume he will take this to trial. I will be very interested in the outcome of this. I ASSUME he has more evidence than just the inauthenticated documents...otherwise, it would probably be better that he settle. We'll see what happens.
-
This is intriguing.
I hope Blumenthal follows up on this story periodically. I also hope he stops claiming that Rather's Complaint establishes anything. It doesn't. All it does, like any other complaint or petition, is allege.
-
Groenhagen
What, you think Bill Clinton could do no wrong or something?
That nothing, ever went wrong while Bill was president?
He didn't do a bad job and, he might just be remembered as a great president when history revisits his two terms, but nobody is capable of being right all the time. Even Bill wasn't that amazing, he could be wrong.
We leave the leader-worship to you righties, who seem to conflate the military, which is supposed to be politically neutral in order to safeguard America's democracy, with a political figure.
-
Can't spell "taliesan" without "lies"
Clinton killed 567,000 Iraqi children and, as a result, gave us 9/11. I would say those two items are prtetty serious things.
-
BRING IT ON!
Thank you Dan Rather for exposing the truth, thank you Sidney Blumenthal for sinking your teeth into it, and thank you SALON for presenting it. That is why we readers are here in the first place; to discover the clear, precise and unabashed truth about how this world works. Gossip and TV listings are best found at local supermarket check-outs.Its great to see SALON getting back to what it does best!
-
Oh, and another thing Groenhagen
While Osama might have been to some extent motivated by Iraqi's suffering (or at least putting on a show of it) that still doesn't link him to Saddam Hussein or make Iraq responsible for Osama.
They didn't ask him to do anything, Saddam didn't even like Saddam.
A direct quote from him volunteering, at the opening of the Kuwait war (Thankyou Wikipedia):
[Bin Laden:] I am ready to prepare 100,000 fighters with good combat capability within three months. You don't need American. You don't need any other non-Muslim troops. We will be enough.
And lets not forget...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm
-
re: Impeachment vs. Desertion
Yellow Dog ,
"but isn't this grounds for impeachment? If a president lies about his military past during and after his campaign does this constitute grounds for impeachment?"
"As Anonymouse made clear by quoting the UCMJ on page 12 of comments, Smirky's all-but-proven behavior does, indeed, constitute desertion and there is NO statute of limitations."
Indeed it IS grounds for impeachment...HOWEVER, you yourself SAID it...ALL-BUT-PROVEN...and THAT is the crux of the matter...NOTHING has been PROVEN as yet.
That's what I've been trying to say. To say someone is a deserter WITHOUT due process is NOT grounds for impeachment. One must PROVE a crime BEFORE impeachment...and one must prove desertion before punishment is administered.
Oh and desertion during wartime CAN BE punishable by death...however the last time this was administered was during WWII.
Further in January of 1977 President Jimmy Carter declared an unconditional amnesty for draft resisters, both accused and those who could face possible prosecution. Later that year, he set up the two stage "pardon" process for military absentees.
Once again, draft evaders and military absentees were treated differently.
Draft evaders were granted unconditional amnesty automatically if there were no other legal charges pending. They would not have a criminal record. Young men who were considered draft evaders did not have to apply (in any formal sense) to get amnesty. It was a blanket amnesty granted to all draft evaders whether they had been engaged in a legal process or not. This is why no figure exists for the real number of draft evaders who benefited from the Carter program. This includes people who were never prosecuted, people who were investigated and not prosecuted, people who were indicted, people for whom charges had been brought, etc. The only restriction is that the person not have other (non-draft evasion) charges pending against them. So a draft evader who had criminal charges pending for participating in a protest would not have those protest-related charges dropped, only the draft evasion charges.
Similarly, military deserters and AWOL's could apply for a limited pardon if there were no other charges pending. Under the Carter program deserters would automatically receive a less than honorable discharge ("Undesirable"), but could apply for an upgrade later. The upgrade would not be automatic and few veterans received them. They were barred from receiving veterans benefits, unlike many other vets with less than honorable discharges.
So the worst you could do would be to give him a less than honorable discharge with NO other punishment.
-
www.gregpalast.com
I keep sending this link and no seems to have checked it out. Oh well, I guess no one is "really" interested in this subject. Just to beat around on it for argument's sake.
Enjoy self-flagellation.
peace,
st john
-
Anonymous
No, you don't actually. The whole purpose of impeachment is that it ammounts to being a trial. You don't have to prove a criminal guily before you try him, you have to prove that you have a case.
-
Is it a coincidence that all of the Editor's Choices favor Mr. Rather's position
Is this one-sided assembly of Editor's Choice selections a coincidence, or might it reflect a predisposition possibly based on an underlying aversion to the President, to favor conspiracy theories, and to support conclusions that are contradicted by the available evidence.
My speculation is that there was some hanky-panky by Mr. Bush in relation to his service in the Air National Guard. But that is not supported by the spurious documentation presented by Mr. Rather. Was he duped? Possibly. But he seems to have been such an avid advocate of opposition to Mr. Bush and motivated by such a desire to secure his electoral defeat, that it would seem that he was complicit in the deception by suppression of his own critical faculties. He seems to have been using the business protocol of "management by objectives" having applied the same process to journalism.
The Rather gambit failed. He may have been spurred on in his decision because his conjecture was so plausible. But as a superannuated man, he certainly had a reservoir of experience on which to draw, which should have resulted in a more cautious approach.
I suspect that the litigation, rather than reestablishing Mr. Rather's credentials and credibility, will with the process and the outcome result in a diminution of his stature.