Letters to the Editor
-
Go for it, Dan
Of all the people in the news business who should be more respected and listened to, Dan Rather is one of the leaders.
He reported a story that could have potentially destroyed the campaign of a presidential candidate who was in power at the time-so the story had to be buried, dismissed and ignored, and he had to be fired. His bosses at CBS are undoubtedly part of the RNC's major campaign donators, just as he probably isn't.
No wonder the whole episode got so damned nasty-Rather, being a Texan, had betrayed the "cause" and had brought shame on the home boy-a cardinal sin in Texas. He was right to report it, and he's right to stand by it even now, in the face of a major legal case.
I hope he gets all depositions he wants, and all the information we were denied by the powers that be. I think he was right to report it, and I believe the story-no matter what the RNC or the White House thinks.
There are a lot of questions about Bush's time in the National Guard though, that will never be answered because shortly after taking office, he put all of the records about certain portions of his life under seal.
I hope Rather wins his day in court.
-
Exposing the man behind the curtain...
Thank you Mr. Blumenthal for your usual in-depth and thorough analysis of a story that must be told. I'm glad you don't work for the New York Times or CBS... or might never have heard about this suit and the underlying facts.
Oh... by the way, did you hear the one about the recent survey that determined that 1,200,000 people have lost their lives as a result of our illegal war and occupation of a country we invaded?
Well, you wouldn't if you read the New York Times or watch CBS. For that matter, throw in the rest of the mainstream media. All you hear of is whether or not 'insurgents' are being counted correctly in the kill count.
Perhaps Mr. Rather's suit will blow open the halls of corrupt corporate media manipulation by the very darkest elements against our democracy... but I assure you, the mainstream media will do their best to make sure no one hears that tree falling in the forest.
-
Maybe I'm naive or desperately hopeful,
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? Would we have elected him in 2004 if we knew that he'd ditched his lame military service? Drank all the time, trashed his apartment and pissed on a car? Aren't presidents supposed to act a little bit more responsibly, even in their youths? And by the way, as a "soldier" in the National guard, I think Lt. Bush would have been thrown in the brig for his drunken antics.
I'm furious that we have, at least, a LACK of proof that Bush served in the National Guard. Isn't this enough to get the little boy out of office? Where's the outrage over his behavior? Forget about forgeries, if Bush can't prove to the American people that he acted honorably and responsibly during his military service he needs to be removed from office.
If anyone can enlighten me about his actions during the Vietnam war in regard to possible impeachment, I await you with bated breath. Please, please is it possible to use this aspect of the story to get him out of there?
-
Typewriters and media toads
The Republican party has gotten very adept at these mass "truth" demonstrations. One example is the Swift Boat Veterans. Another would have been the unmasking of photoshopped photos from Arab stringers during the most recent Lebanon crisis. What you had was bombing that was killing many civilians and destroying houses. Many, many truthful stories were filed, plus a stringer who was taking short cuts. So we got clumsily-cloned smoke, and two jets rather than one dropping bombs. It's important to root out the fakers, but that wasn't the story line. The story was, "These pictures of Israeli bombs destroying buildings and killing civilians are all fake," which they weren't. Pick one detail of a story and put that in doubt. From that, you quickly move to establish a narrative. It doesn't have to fit all the facts, just the ones that you've "exposed."
But my party is stupid, I guess, because Mr. Von Spakovsky, an Atlanta lawyer who practically invented the idea of "voter fraud" being a terrible contagion, is now nominated for the FEC. Our own Dianne Feinstein, and the true DINO (dare we say, Betray us?) Ben Nelson, has got him to the floor without testimony. Good God, the Dems are getting hammered left and right, and only half of them know it.
-
But Bush isn't the story here.
CBS's craven kowtowing is. We might as well have government owned and operated media in this country now. And please don't tell me the Internet will set you free. At best, it's peripheral.
-
...and the Abu Ghraib abuses?
Did I miss something or was there only one letter mentioning Abu Ghraib?
-
Don't Get Played
I think Neimon makes an excellent case: if you know this story is coming, leak a recreated/forged document that only a person familiar with the story could produce -- and pre-brief right-wing bloggers about how to attack the document. It did kill an irrefutable story (no one can contend that Bush didn't skip out on his duties in multiple ways on multiple occasions).
Also, if the document is false, another fact adds credibility to this theory: the CBS report didn't need this document at all. The entire story contained damning evidence without it -- personal testimony from people involved with Bush's actions who have no reason to lie, other documentation about Bush not showing up, and a notable lack of evidence that Bush did comply with his responsibilities (in a military where there would be a long paper trail for compliance with regulations). In other words, there is no motive for Rather, Mapes, or anyone trying to get this story out to forge this document. The only motive for doing so would be to plant useful evidence to discredit the story. (Again, it is very hard to ignore that bloggers knew to focus in on this document the moment the story aired.)
But to get bogged down in this document, as others point out, is to work within the wrong frame. The point of the story was that Bush was an irresponsible person who avoided serving his country -- and that story has not been refuted by anyone. Why should this one document have any significant role in the larger story? Had a document appearing to be from 40’s and outlining the Holocaust been found to be a fake, would that have any bearing on the truth that Germany murdered millions? Don't be played. The biggest weakness of the reality-based community is that they are so willing to accept the frames of the right that are constructed with the intent to obscure reality.
[On a side note, a simple comparison of the 60 Minutes "forgery" with another forgery shows us how unscientifically we apply public analysis. It is on the public record that the President of the United States cited forged Nigerian documents that suggested conclusions 180 degrees from what turned out to be reality, yet no official inquiry looking into this was carried out (instead a CIA operative was outted). Yet a document presented by a mere reporter that is in agreement with the still-intact public record continues to be viewed by many as somehow more serious. We are letting ourselves be played.]