@#$& Dan Rather and CBS.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:56 pm

OckhamRules wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
OckhamRules wrote: In conclusion, the Kerry campaign did not contact Burkett and then have him call CBS.
.
Uhm...
Lockhart(Kerry campaign adviser), who confirms talking to Bill Burkett, the man who gave suspect documents to CBS...
?
Did you actually read the article? Here's the relevant chronology from it:
But Lockhart said there was no coordination. He said he talked to Burkett after getting a call from a Mapes (the CBS producer), who said Burkett had been a help on a National Guard story she was working on and wanted to speak to someone in the Kerry campaign.
It's no use. He chooses not to understand. Like Luke and his Kerry flip-flop fixation.

It's all our-team-versus-your-team with these guys. No matter how smart they are, apparently.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33459
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1717 times

Post by Grammatron » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:00 pm

Seems just as reasonable as discussing Bush's record.

From the same article
Asked what he had learned about Bush's National Guard service, Lockhart said, "Not a single detail. [Burkett] didn't tell me anything; I didn't ask him anything."
So Mapes told Lockhart that he helped on the National Guard service story and he didn't ask or was told anything about that very subject? Sounds very believable.

OckhamRules
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:40 pm

Post by OckhamRules » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:12 pm

Sundog wrote:It's no use. He chooses not to understand. Like Luke and his Kerry flip-flop fixation.

It's all our-team-versus-your-team with these guys. No matter how smart they are, apparently.
I guess you're right. Too bad because I think they seem smart, too.

I've been waiting for one of the Bush supporters to post in the thread in Shanek's thread "in support of your candidate"--because I'm extremely curious (HOW? WHY?).

I'm sure they have their reasons and that they seem like good reasons to Bush supporters.

But...the thread has only posts from Dems and Libertarians. I wonder if any Bush supporter will ever write a coherent statement of support there so the rest of us could learn something from the other side?

Looks like the answer is .... no. :(

User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 19726
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Big cynic in small state
Location: Rhode Island
Has thanked: 308 times
Been thanked: 472 times

Post by Bruce » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:16 pm

hey, Hey, HEY!! Dan Rather said he was sorry, ok. Doesn't that make it all better? :D
Such potential!

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33459
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1717 times

Post by Grammatron » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:20 pm

Well you seemed like some one I could have a debate with w/o it getting into personal insults. So much for that.

User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:29 pm

Grammatron wrote:Well you seemed like some one I could have a debate with w/o it getting into personal insults. So much for that.
Don't be that way! We're sorry we called you smart!

(Ummm... what insult? I missed it.)

User avatar
Luke T.
Posts: 27062
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Nowhere near Pakistan

Post by Luke T. » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:31 pm

OckhamRules wrote:So...no Kerry campaign involvement in the "memo problem" whatsoever.
A campaign advisor speaking with the forger is your idea of no involvement???
[size=75]"it seems you don't believe how your enviroment of smells affects for a young ones.how many young girl are are in just involved in porn industry just because of lack of natural smells" - pillory (7/13/02)[/size]

I [size=167]♣[/size]69dodge

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33459
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1717 times

Post by Grammatron » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:32 pm

Sundog wrote:
Grammatron wrote:Well you seemed like some one I could have a debate with w/o it getting into personal insults. So much for that.
Don't be that way! We're sorry we called you smart!

(Ummm... what insult? I missed it.)
I was referring to your allusion of me being ignorant. I don't much care for that.

User avatar
Luke T.
Posts: 27062
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Nowhere near Pakistan

Post by Luke T. » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:34 pm

If Karl Rove had talked to the forger, what kind of hay would you guys make of that? What would Dan Rather have made of it?

You see the difference? The only real non-involvement is Karl Rove. Absolutely none. But that didn't stop the attempted smear against him from being widely circulated.

HUGE difference.
[size=75]"it seems you don't believe how your enviroment of smells affects for a young ones.how many young girl are are in just involved in porn industry just because of lack of natural smells" - pillory (7/13/02)[/size]

I [size=167]♣[/size]69dodge

User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:37 pm

Grammatron wrote:
Sundog wrote:
Grammatron wrote:Well you seemed like some one I could have a debate with w/o it getting into personal insults. So much for that.
Don't be that way! We're sorry we called you smart!

(Ummm... what insult? I missed it.)
I was referring to your allusion of me being ignorant. I don't much care for that.
Where did I say that? Nonsense. I think I have said precisely the opposite a couple of times today.

I said you choose not to understand. A different thing altogether.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33459
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1717 times

Post by Grammatron » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:39 pm

Sundog wrote: I said you choose not to understand. A different thing altogether.
Isn't that Ignorance? I recognize English is not my first language but it appears you're saying I chose to be ignorant of the "Truth" in light of all the "Facts."

User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:48 pm

Grammatron wrote:
Sundog wrote: I said you choose not to understand. A different thing altogether.
Isn't that Ignorance? I recognize English is not my first language but it appears you're saying I chose to be ignorant of the "Truth" in light of all the "Facts."
I didn't mean to be insulting. I'm sure you know that. It seems to me that that's what you do sometimes though - you choose not to recognize something clear that's right in front of you..

My apologies. I don't think you do it intentionally or dishonestly; I think that sometimes you don't think through points on the left as well as you do points on the right.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33459
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1717 times

Post by Grammatron » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:53 pm

Sundog wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
Sundog wrote: I said you choose not to understand. A different thing altogether.
Isn't that Ignorance? I recognize English is not my first language but it appears you're saying I chose to be ignorant of the "Truth" in light of all the "Facts."
I didn't mean to be insulting. I'm sure you know that. It seems to me that that's what you do sometimes though - you choose not to recognize something clear that's right in front of you..

My apologies. I don't think you do it intentionally or dishonestly; I think that sometimes you don't think through points on the left as well as you do points on the right.
I think I simply look at the issue and see things differently. We both see facts the same, but the conclusion we draw from these facts will most likely be different seen we both view life differently.

For this exact reason I don't think either of us is right or wrong in most of this discussions. And while you may think I chose not see something that's in front of me, sometimes I think you see things that are not there at all. That is kind of weird if not funny.

OckhamRules
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:40 pm

Post by OckhamRules » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:59 pm

Luke T wrote: But Lockhart said there was no coordination. He said he talked to Burkett after getting a call from a Mapes, who said Burkett had been a help on a National Guard story she was working on and wanted to speak to someone in the Kerry campaign.
Umm...not to be pedantic, but Burkett says he wasn't the forger. He claims someone else gave him the documents.

Also, all this took place after CBS had their story. That makes a big difference.

And, Burkett's not just a guy from out of nowhere. He was in the National Guard and did work with Killian. He's known from things he's said about Bush before. It's no surprise that he supports Kerry or would be upset about all the smearing from the Swift Boat group. If Lockhart called him back, well, I'm envious because I have a lot I'd like to tell them too :twisted: , but I don't think its such a big deal.

I think Bob Novak collaborating with "senior adminstration officials" to out a CIA agent in revenge for criticizing Bush's policies...well, to me, that is infinitely worse than Dan Rather not listening to the people they consulted to vet these documents.
Last edited by OckhamRules on Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33459
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1717 times

Post by Grammatron » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:02 pm

OckhamRules wrote:Umm...not to be pedantic, but Burkett says he wasn't the forger. He claims someone else gave him the documents.

And, he's not just a guy from out of nowhere. He was in the National Guard and did work with Killian. He's known from things he's said about Bush before. It's no surprise that he supports Kerry or would be upset about all the smearing from the Swift Boat group. If Lockhart called him back, well, I'm envious because I have a lot I'd like to tell them too :twisted: , but I don't think its such a big deal.

I think Bob Novak collaborating with "senior adminstration officials" to out a CIA agent in revenge for criticizing Bush's policies...well, to me, that is infinitely worse than Dan Rather not listening to the people they consulted to vet these documents.
And that's connected to National Guard how?

OckhamRules
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:40 pm

Post by OckhamRules » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:06 pm

Grammatron wrote:And that's connected to National Guard how?
Hey, Grammatron, guess what?

The topic of journalistic ethics is actually broader than stories about the National Guard!

People are criticizing Rather for ethics concerns--mainly that he didn't adequately check his sources and may have been blinded by political bias.

I'm pointing out what a total PASS the same press gave Novak for a much worse action, ethically and journalistically speaking--and obviously, not a mistake.

And, unlike Rather, there's no that doubt Novak's action was not a "mistake" and that the political bias was clearly the motivating factor.

Still...silence from the press.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33459
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1717 times

Post by Grammatron » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:12 pm

OckhamRules wrote:
Grammatron wrote:And that's connected to National Guard how?
Hey, Grammatron, guess what?

The topic of journalistic ethics is actually broader than stories about the National Guard!

People are criticizing Rather for ethics concerns--mainly that he didn't adequately check his sources and may have been blinded by political bias.

I'm pointing out what a total PASS the same press gave Novak for a much worse action, ethically and journalistically speaking--and obviously, not a mistake.

And, unlike Rather, there's no that doubt Novak's action was not a "mistake" and that the political bias was clearly the motivating factor.

Still...silence from the press.
I admit to be have almost no knowledge of the Novak story. What I recall is someone in the white house leaked that some guy's wife use to be a CIA agent. Have there been new developments?

OckhamRules
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:40 pm

Post by OckhamRules » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:23 pm

Grammatron wrote:I admit to be have almost no knowledge of the Novak story. What I recall is someone in the white house leaked that some guy's wife use to be a CIA agent. Have there been new developments?
Close, but not quite. Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly criticized the Bush policy on Iraq. In revenge, a "senior White House official", called several reporters and told them that Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was actually a covert CIA agent.

Novak printed that in his column, basically wrecking her career, endangering her safety, and making himself a treasonous tool of the administration. (Or in the words of Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, "Robert Novak: Douchebag of Liberty").

The FBI is "investigating" to see which administration official leaked it. And investigating...and investigating...and investigating.....

User avatar
Evolver
Posts: 12783
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: The Idiocracy
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Post by Evolver » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:49 am

OK. Let me get this straight. CBS & Rather rely on false information and air a story about Bush's service record. Now everything they tell you is suspect.

Bush & Company rely on false information to justify going to war, and still you righties blindly believe everything they say.

Ironic.
2016 & 2018 NFL "Sorry To Make You Cry" Challenge Champion

"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there would be no religious people." - Dr. Gregory House

User avatar
Andalyn
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Post by Andalyn » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:33 pm

Evolver wrote:OK. Let me get this straight. CBS & Rather rely on false information and air a story about Bush's service record. Now everything they tell you is suspect.

Bush & Company rely on false information to justify going to war, and still you righties blindly believe everything they say.

Ironic.
Of all the justifications for going to war, you lefties seem to be stuck on only one. Which, I might add - the UN, England, Germany, Russia, and most of the rest of the damn world thought the WMD was there.

In Bush's speech, he listed several reasons for going to war with Iraq. You lefties only want to carp on one.
[size=9][color=gray].[/size][/color]
[b][color=indigo]CAESAR SI VIVERET, AD REMUM DARERIS.[/color][/b]
[size=9][color=gray].[/size][/color]
[color=crimson]100 COOL POINTS to NightG1 for finding my batboy picture. He Rocketh![/color]