« UPDATE: France or Spain? | Main | Now $50,000 and still unclaimed »
September 18, 2004
Reading of Interest for a Saturday morning
C_BS is bound and determined to keep digging that hole to China. In another brilliant example of chutzpah, Powerline notes the strategy of slandering a person, and when they defend themselves, brush off the defense as suspect because they were slandered in the first place:
Yesterday, we noted that General Staudt had given an interview to ABC in which he denied that he had pressured anyone about Lt. Bush, and put to rest the claim that he had somehow come out of retirement to do it. In addition, Staudt drove a stake through the heart of the claim that Bush received preferential treatment in getting into the Guard. Staudt said that he was the person who accepted Bush as a pilot, that he did so solely because he thought Bush would make a fine pilot, and that he received no communications from anyone in relation to Bush's application. (Contrary to what is often reported in the press, there was no "waiting list" at that time to become a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.)Staudt's testimony would seem to definitively put the lie to CBS's faked memos, but that's not how CBS sees it. Yesterday CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius brushed off Staudt's comments:
In a debate this heated, one can hardly expect Gen. Staudt to endorse the point of view that he exerted undue influence.
Mark Steyn writes, yet again, another great column that cuts to the chase of the issue, then asks, "Why has CBS News decided it would rather debauch its brand and treat its audience like morons than simply admit their hoax? For Dan Rather?"
Well, I know I have a good idea why. It might have to do with growing evidence of connections between CBS, Burkett and Max Cleland as Allah explains.
LittleGreenFootballs is hot this morning. Charles Johnson is posting multiple threads all worth reading.
This is a good start of the day. I note, too, from last night and this morning, much consternation over "Election Observers" arriving in the US from foreign countries. People, this is not the UN. I will repost here an article I wrote on this subject on August 7.
Posted by Darleen at September 18, 2004 08:25 AM
Comments
Hello all, I got here from PowerLine, which I had thought was an energy bar or something.
It's funny to see some of the conservative dialogue about the CBS docs, etc. If only you had rational, consistent standards, and valued critical thinking, you might get things right more often. Maybe you don't care whether you are correct or not, but I assume you do, and are merely not very good at arriving at the truth.
You're good at clinging to beliefs with "resolve," and you're very good at manipulating public opinion via assertion and selective . The coordinated, very consistent propaganda techniques used in news related media is impressive, and effective.
But you have an Achilles heel: Your lack of interest in reliably determining whether claims are true, combined with the lack of any consistent standard or principle.
You just look looney when you get all up in arms about one show's use of suspect documents to support one story, but you didn't seem to have much interest in the government's use of a blatant forgery used to support the war.
Your message is that it's okay for Bush to use a forgery to shore up his doctrine, and it doesn't matter where it came from, but if a news show has some suspect documents used as the partial support for a single story consistent with known facts, well, it's time to demand investigations and suggest he should resign, etc.
Comment?
I would enjoy a good debate, and this seems like one good issue.
Here are my basic premises:
• My goal is to be right; for my perception to best fit the known facts and evidence. So if you prove to be correct, I'll be happy to agree. Is that your goal, or would you prefer defending your view whether correct or not?
• Not everything is a matter of opinion. Some facts can be determined with a little investigation.
• Possibility does not imply plausibility. It is possible that invisible flying unicorns control our thoughts, but there is no reason to think so.
• I won't adopt a belief without good reason.
Debate is not only fun, it's very beneficial in sharpening one's mind.
I'll be civil and polite, or arrogant and insulting, either way. I enjoy flaming, but it's usually not as fun as really matching wits. Again, I like to be right. If you can convince me that a different understanding is more right, I'll be right there with you.
I have an argument that the docs are likely genuine, if you'd like to debate that. I'm sure you'd like to tackle a real, live liberal in a debate, right?
Posted by: Binacontenda at September 19, 2004 01:58 AM
Binacontenda
If you have an actual argument that deals in plausibility not possibility (and I agree with you on that count) that the memos are "authentic," then I wouldn't mind hearing it. I will tell you at the beginning, too, that Occam's razor applies. Most of the theories I've seen floating at sites dKos remind me of the most fevered "Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster" conspiracy rantings of the fringie right-wing.
The kindest thing I can say about CBS is they were bamboozled by fakes (not the first time this has happened to them. And not the first Old Media to have this happen to), Rather, with serious ties Democrats and a grudge THIS BIG against the whole Bush family (and Rather is infamous for how he treats people he has grudges against) just couldn't resist being the first to slam GW with "secret memos."
With that said, Bina, I'm all ears. ;-)
Posted by: Darleen at September 19, 2004 08:56 AM
Hi Darleen,
First of all, if the ties to Lockhart via the phone call seem bad to you, what about Carl Cameron (FOX News reporter) having his wife (or sister, I forget) work on the Bush campaign while he was covering that campaign? Isn't that worse than a single short phone call?
Also, Rather was hardly the first. I've known about the Bush AWOL story for years, and there are many other documents supporting it. The story stands without the CBS docs.
Okay, here are some points of argument:
1. The documents' content is consistent with all known related evidence, and do not contradict known fact.
2. The first arguments for forgery failed, such as that available typewriters couldn't produce various elements.
3. No clear proof of forgery has been produced. Officially, they just haven't been authenticated. Yet forgery proponents assert the forgery as fact, which seems dishonest. The only honest position is "we don't know yet."
4. After working on the story for four years, and soliciting expert opinion, and showing clearly high concern for authenticity, knowing the scrutiny the story would get, CBS remained confident. They were deceived about the source, but that in itself does not make the docs forgeries.
5. Forgery arguments are circumstantial, relying on innuendo and speculation, not definitive analysis. Forgery proponents have also made invalid arguments, and use unwarranted assumptions about bias, instead of forensic, scientific analysis.
6. If they are forgeries, why use all the unfair tactics? All they had to do was find the typewriter models which could do superscript, etc. at that time and try them out. That would be an easy way to show that no typewriter could have made them. Why hasn't any forgery proponent done so? It would be undeniably convincing. If they are forgeries, that would totally drive it home - but they don't do that. They just say they're forgeries and attack Dan Rather, and get all emotional about it. Why is that?
So, what do you think of that argument? If you can knock it down, I'll concede it. I just like to be right, as I've said, and it's not like I have any personal investment.
All that said, my own position remains that I don't know. My best guess is that CBS was indeed duped by very clever copies which simply can't be proven to be authentic or forged. I hope somebody does the typewriter test, though.
If that's how it is, I don't think the attacks on CBS are very fair. This doesn't destroy their credibility for me, in fact, I admire the integrity they showed by revealing and admitting their mistake.
Posted by: Binacontenda at September 23, 2004 10:53 PM