Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: burnedout
Content and authenticity are two entirely different aspects. If you are unable to discern as much, then you are either illiterate or stupid or both.I don't see where CBS has backed away from the content of the story?
LMAO, That is what I've been saying all along.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: burnedout
Content and authenticity are two entirely different aspects. If you are unable to discern as much, then you are either illiterate or stupid or both.I don't see where CBS has backed away from the content of the story?
LMAO, That is what I've been saying all along.
Integrity demands that authenticity is a prerequisite of content.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Integrity demands that authenticity is a prerequisite of content.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Integrity demands that authenticity is a prerequisite of content.
And CBS believed in their authenticity at the time the story aired. Burkett still claims they are authentic.
The best evidence against the authenticity of the memo's is Marion Knox who says that they are not the documents she typed, but the content of the documents is correct. But of course you wouldn't want to believe her and others who were THERE at the time, what would they know??
You would rather have a bunch of so-called experts guess at it, as long as you agree with their guess. And you critizize CBS??? LOL
Bush's onetime roommate and Guard buddy, Dean Roome, told USA Today in 2002 that the future president started out "gung-ho." But, Roome added: "Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life."
"I was under the impression that he was intending to come back every month or so for four or five or six days to make up some drills and then go back [to Alabama]," Hodges recalled. "But maybe because of the situation, he felt like he couldn't come back to make the drills up with us."
An array of Guard officials ? including a Houston physician who spent 10 years as the flight surgeon for Bush's air wing ? said they could not recall another pilot who skipped his mandatory medical exam.
"There were cases where they'd be a few weeks late because their regular jobs might get them in a bind," retired flight surgeon Jerry Marcontell said in a recent interview. "But I don't remember anyone missing a physical for months at a time. Certainly not a year."
The memo Knox remembers has yet to surface. Although Knox dismisses the CBS memos as fakes, she says that real memos at the time raised not only the issue of Bush's missed physical but also attempts by superiors to pump up his evaluation.
Still, many of Bush's fellow Texas Guardsmen honored and often exceeded their military service goals, as did thousands of other so-called weekend warriors.
Two other sons of prominent Texans who entered the Texas Guard then far surpassed minimum standards. Lloyd Bentsen III, whose father was a businessman and rising Democratic politician, and John B. Connally III, whose father was Texas governor, both made captain. Bentsen, who served with Bush in the 147th, volunteered for an extra year.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Even now you cannot prove they are false."
Yea, but this catch phrase is much catchier than that crap catch phrase that you had in your sig.
Integrity demands that authenticity is a prerequisite of content. :thumbsup:
evidence, blah,blah preponderance, blah, blah, blah. :thumbsdown:
To begin with, none of the folks you mention have gone on record in the media defending either side in the "See BS" story. Next, why must you continue with such rude behavior? For the sake of etiquette, I requested you take the discussion to this thread. But what happens? I'm the one with all the initiative. Figures.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: burnedout
Are they part of the CBS story? No. By the way, please take the discussion to the correct thread. Thanks.The Flight Surgeon??
How about this guy?
Your just an asshat aren't you. I think you better straighten out your tin foil, there apperas to be some leakage.
The CBS story is about Bush's ANG service is it not? Duhhh.....Byahhh
Why should I even entertain any argument you might have when you can't even convey a relevant concept?In subsequent interviews, Roome has backed away from that statement, saying only that Bush was a good pilot who completed his duty.
Originally posted by: burnedout
Why should I even entertain any argument you might have when you can't even convey a relevant concept?
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: burnedout
Why should I even entertain any argument you might have when you can't even convey a relevant concept?
Some advice, my friend. Flush twice, As it is a long way to South Dakota.
Originally posted by: burnedout
To begin with, none of the folks you mention have gone on record in the media defending either side in the "See BS" story. Next, why must you continue with such rude behavior? For the sake of etiquette, I requested you take the discussion to this thread. But what happens? I'm the one with all the initiative. Figures.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: burnedout
Are they part of the CBS story? No. By the way, please take the discussion to the correct thread. Thanks.The Flight Surgeon??
How about this guy?
Your just an asshat aren't you. I think you better straighten out your tin foil, there apperas to be some leakage.
The CBS story is about Bush's ANG service is it not? Duhhh.....Byahhh
Finally, why should I straighten out my "tin foil"? Once again, you are the one withholding information. For example, you cite a statement by Dean Roome, but once again conveniently fail to mention this interesting comment by the L.A. Slimes:
Why should I even entertain any argument you might have when you can't even convey a relevant concept?In subsequent interviews, Roome has backed away from that statement, saying only that Bush was a good pilot who completed his duty.
Content and authenticity are two entirely different aspects. If you are unable to discern as much, then you are either illiterate or stupid or both.
Well, well, well. What is this? "'rude' name calling"? Ummm, for some reason you failed to notice the "if" in the above statement. What is going on with you and basic comprehension of the English language lately?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Content and authenticity are two entirely different aspects. If you are unable to discern as much, then you are either illiterate or stupid or both.
More "rude" name calling. Just admit you've been owned on this one. The allegations have not been proven false, so you were wrong to call them false.
There is plenty of evidence to support the assertions contained in those memo's. At this point in time, I can't prove it conclusivley to be true but you can't disprove it conclusively either.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Integrity demands that authenticity is a prerequisite of content.
Originally posted by: Condor
Lot of verbage. Who, in the end, cares whether it is true or false that Bush avoided another year of duty in Texas? I don't believe they were fighting at the Alamo in 1972. No wars in Texas. If it is a bit_h about curtailing duty after he was obviously bored with it, how come Kerry didn't serve out his full six year commitment. He left the service under some very suspicious circumstances and he won't release his full records - not even the ones that exist. He won't sign a FOIA slip! Kerry is the one with something he wants to keep hidden. How come CBS isn't doing a bit on that. Equal time there would be unbiased.
I?ll start here a checklist of CBS Legal Department Evidence Tampering, which I will update from time to time.
I am defining evidence tampering in two ways: 1) the alteration of a thing with intent to change the thing in a manner material to a foreseeable investigation, or 2) tampering with the likely testimony of someone who is fairly identifiable as a material witness in a foreseeable criminal or official investigation.
[Update: If I defined tampering more broadly to include the merely 'unethical', the list would be longer. Ernest Miller has done a great job with that stupidity and unethical listing, though.]
Pre-Broadcast Tampering
1. CBS Legal inserts made-up ?personal files? tag into original story, in an effort to sidestep Texas felony forgery law.
2. CBS Legal terminates the involvement of its outside experts Emily Will and Linda James, when the experts cast doubt on the story. Notably, CBS Legal terminates Will when she begins internet research to further discredit the origin of the forged memos.
3. CBS Legal crafts the scope of its engagement of outside experts, to what CBS Legal determines is a sufficiently narrow and irrelevant role so as to not impart clear evidence of a ?guilty mind? (mens rea) on CBS.
4. CBS makes incomplete and misleading statements to General Hodges, and then includes his reactions thereto as evidence. Garbage in, garbage out. CBS acts intentionally.
Post Broadcast Tampering
5. CBS falsely claims, in writing, that CBS?s reporters had "verified the authentication of the the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written."
6. CBS requests and obtains written reports from its experts after the fact. However, due to its termination of two experts, it was able to obtain written reports from only two experts. One expert's report does not go to authentication, and has been repudiated by the expert fo rthe purpose that CBS is claiming. The other expert report, incomplete on its face, is later repudiated by the expert for the purpose CBS is claiming. Query, what were the direct or implied understandings about payment of fees to experts Pierce and Matley, in relation to their providing these after-the-fact written reports? What pressure was used by CBS to affect the experts's opinions?
7. [Removed; I spoke with Marcel Matley this morning, and my initial speculation was not correct; in our brief talk, Matley dated his original interview with 60 Minutes as occuring on Labor Day.]
8. CBS demands that its experts not speak publicly.
9. CBS refuses to name its experts publicly, as that might reveal that CBS is attributing false statements to them.
10. CBS misrepresented the substance of the opinions that its experts rendered, basically by CBS falsely claiming that its experts had authenticated the forged documents. All four experts have come forth and stated that they did not authenticate the forged memos in any manner, or in the manner claimed by CBS.
11. CBS edits the Matley interview tape. CBS knew it had problems but rebroadcast it, as a purported re-verification. Matley has since stated that CBS acted wrongly. (Check the physical evidence alteration statute?.)
12. CBS tampers with witness Knox (Killian?s secretary) by flying a crew to Texas and massaging her story and memory. 50+ years of veteran interviewing, teamed up behind closed doors with an 86 year old lady. CBS releases only a few seconds of the interview - a highly edited tape with sound edits by CBS telling viewers what Knox was supposed to have said, rather than Knox's actual words, qualifiers, etc. (Irony alert: CBS, don't erase the raw footage... we believed Rose Mary Woods, but never again.) (Check the tampering statute...)
13. CBS edits the Knox interview tape. (Check the physical evidence alteration statute...)
14. CBS?s tampering with Knox is intended to establish a few defenses for CBS under the Texas forgery statute. The ridiculous ?fake but accurate? claim planted by CBS with the old lady is an attempted defense under the statute. At 86, she might not be around in a couple of years for a trial, and the tape might be admitted into evidence, despite its hearsay nature. Also, CBS has planted its story in her mind - "gotten to a witness" before the tribunal officers can; that is the essence of witness tampering.
15. First criticizing skeptics due to their lack of having the source material, CBS then disavows any handling of the original memos. The turnabout is an attempted defense under the Texas forgery statute.
16. CBS accuses General Hodges of lying, after Hodges come forth and states that CBS tricked him over the telephone and then misused his statements.
17. CBS falsely stated that its experts vetted the memos, then claimed its experts were not relevant, then accused its experts of violating their confidentiality obligations, then stated the experts are not telling the truth about their work for CBS.
18. Days after damning evidence was public, CBS, knowing of its falsity, again claimed that it had verified the authentication of the forged documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written.
19. CBS News Head Andrew Heyward mades the legal claim that he saw zero possibility of forgery at the time of broadcast. This false statement ? directly contary to expert written opinions provided to CBS pre-broadcast -- is an attempted defense under the Texas forgery statute.
20. CBS falsely stated that it would not name its experts due to confidentiality issues. This was false - there was no confidentiality agreement, and all four experts had, or soon thereafter did, speak publicly. The ?confidentiality? referred to by CBS was, in fact, the attempt by CBS Legal to keep the experts? opinions secret, under the umbrella of attorney client privilege. (Irony Alert: the motion picture, ?The Insider??Gina Gershon, folks. That's CBS Legal, in a tight skirt.)
21. CBS claims that the ?content of the report? is backed up by evidence and people. Again, ?Fake but Accurate.? This is a legalistic and tortured attempt to avoid the Texas forgery statute by invoking the defense that the copies faithfully represent the original, therefore they are not forgeries.
22. CBS?s Betsy West falsely claims that experts Will and James raised no substantive objections to the memos. In fact, they issued written objections, pre-broadcast, and were promptly terminated by CBS.
23. CBS falsely claims that an expert, pre-broadcast, had assured CBS on the specific issue that the superscript ?th? was an authentic 1970?s typestyle. No such opinion was given; in fact, CBS was warned by its experts.
24. CBS?s Genelius falsely states that in giving their opinions, Will and James were relying upon, and then deferred to, the opinions of Matley. All experts dispute that; it was an intentional lie by CBS.
&&&&&
You see journalist lapses, bad judgment and the like? OK. I see criminal intent.
Check the codes; it's all there.
More to come.
[Update: The Criminal Statute Scorecard for CBS (so far)]:
The Texas crimes:
Texas Penal Code 32.21 ? Forgery
Penal 36.05 ? Tampering with Witness
Penal 37.09 ? Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence
The Federal crimes:
18 USC Sec. 1341. - Frauds and swindles
18 USC Sec. 1342. -Fictitious name or address
18 USC Sec. 1349. - Attempt and conspiracy
18 USC Sec. 1343. - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
47 USC Sec. 508 ? [Payola] Disclosure of payments connected with broadcasts
18 USC Sec. 1512. - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
No kidding. From some self-proclaimed legal expert who apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the words "evidence" or "tampering".Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Who cares? It's all just a bunch of double talk. If you think you have a case, sue them. LOL
Heh. In yet another example of media advocacy, good old Dan and company strikes again! Incidentally, the "See BS" News draft story is available here.Originally posted by: klah
Looks like CBS has no shame: http://ratherbiased.com/news.html#87
Basing a draft story on hoax emails and the president of a liberal anti-war group who they claim "is a republican".
"I go to bed every night and I pray, and I actually get sick to my stomach. I'm very worried. I'm scared. I'm absolutely scared. I'm petrified" :roll:
The Bush campaign says expecting great numbers of foreign troops to help out is pure fantasy.
With all due respect burnedout, I think the "BS" is these continuing attacks on CBS. Did you read their story? What did they get wrong?Originally posted by: burnedout
Heh. In yet another example of media advocacy, good old Dan and company strikes again! Incidentally, the "See BS" News draft story is available here.Originally posted by: klah
Looks like CBS has no shame: http://ratherbiased.com/news.html#87
Basing a draft story on hoax emails and the president of a liberal anti-war group who they claim "is a republican".
"I go to bed every night and I pray, and I actually get sick to my stomach. I'm very worried. I'm scared. I'm absolutely scared. I'm petrified" :roll:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Hi. I have many problems with report. In fact, I read the piece twice and compared the published version with the broadcast version prior to posting the earlier reply. Have you a few moments and an objective mind? Alrighty then, let us proceed.With all due respect burnedout, I think the "BS" is these continuing attacks on CBS. Did you read their story? What did they get wrong?
CBS mentions that the mass e-mail campaign is worrying parents. The messages may be bogus, but the concern they cause is real. Parents are worried. Does CBS feed that fear? No. They contacted Bush and Kerry, reporting that both camps deny any interest in reinstating the draft.
So what's the problem?
Firstly, why the difference in the report on the website and the broadcast version? A video of the
original report is available for viewing at various places around the web and strangely, this statement - "Beverly Cocco is so concerned she is involved with the organization 'People Against the Draft'." - is
conspicuously absent from the broadcasted version. Would this statement have changed the overall tone of the report? Maybe, maybe not. However, knowing cause and effect certainly assists the audience in
arriving at a more informed conclusion.
Secondly, why the focus on one single family? Why aren't we presented with an opposing view from those
living under similar circumstances as to whether or not they actually hold the same belief that selective service could materialize? The audience finds itself provided with only one example. Why such a
narrow focus?
Thirdly, why isn't the viewer presented with opinion effectively debunking the e-mail myth? Why no detailed analysis of the e-mail messages themselves? Furthermore, why no mention of the bills in congress; both of which were sponsored by Democrats for the apparent sake of symbolism? If I'm not mistaken, reinstatement of the "draft" requires approval by Congress. Why is there no mention of such approval?
Fourthly, both the viewer and reader of both versions can observe many troubling inconsistencies.
And the machinery for a draft is already in place: all men have to register when they turn 18.
Why no mention of the fact that registration for selective service has existed since at least the time when I first enlisted in the Army twenty-four years ago? And what really irks me the most, why the differences in reality?
From the Selective Service website:
"Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service."
Yet the report, both in broadcast and print version, flatly states the following:
"This time, Martin says there would be no long deferments for college students and a lot more people could be eligible for the draft than before: men and women ages 18 to 26 could be called up."
Since when are women in this country required to register for selective service? When was the last time our nation conscripted women?
Lastly, from a pragmatic standpoint, is a draft really required? Where are the recruiting statistics? We know some components of the National Guard and Reserves will likely experience a shortfall this fiscal
year. However, active duty components are on glide to meet enlistment goals.
In conclusion, to me, this report amounts to little more than fearmongering, accented by inaccuracies, and projects a half-hearted attempt at critical inquiry. For this reason, one therefore finds my criticism so harsh; particularly in light of this network's most recent history.
In effect, like any other producer of goods and services, "See BS" also assumes the role of a "producer".
The organization purportedly manufactures a product we commonly refer to as "news". And like any other good or service, such as automobiles, fast food, clothing, yard work, house painting, etc., criticism should not only be expected but also encouraged.
We all have our own opinions regarding various individuals or entities. You have your own misgivings about President Bush, which I both respect and and even invite. On the other hand, my current disgust centers around journalism; especially older, more traditional forms of journalism engaging in advocacy while ignoring established policies and widely-published facts.
What the hell is this? "I like to babble horsecrap on da innernet for the sake of seeing it published" day? Or must you perhaps argue specifically to prove your idiocy. Have you lost your farkin' mind?!?!?!?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Face it, your problem is with anyone who you perceive to disagree with your veiwpoint.
Like it or not, an extended excursion in Iraq may very well necessitate a reinstatement of the draft. Since we have a both sexes in all phases of the armed forces now, the draft would likely include both men and women. The all volunteer system has been working well, but we haven't had much of a need for extended deployments of personnel, especialy in hazordous/battle conditions.
The question is will we get enough volunteers under such conditions? The necessity to extend our current troops deployments and to prevent their timely discharge points to the inescapable conclusion that if Iraq continues to develop into a quagmire, then the draft will need to be put back into place. There really are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the writing on the wall.