Can You Believe This? (Political)

[R. Richard]

I ripped this off the AP newswire. It now appears that the CBS exclusive about President Bush's National Guard service was a fraud!

NEW YORK - CBS apologized Monday and said it was misled about the authenticity of documents used to support a "60 Minutes" story that questioned President Bush (news - web sites)'s Vietnam War-era National Guard service, after several experts denounced them as fakes.

"We should not have used them," CBS News President Andrew Heyward said. "That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

CBS also said it was commissioning an independent panel to review the incident, and would announce the name of the participants shortly.

The White House said the affair raises questions about the connections between CBS's source and Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites)'s presidential campaign.

CBS's concession was a major blow to the credibility of the news organization and anchor Dan Rather, who reported the story and issued his own apology Monday.

"We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry," he said. "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."

Almost immediately after the Sept. 8 story aired, document experts questioned memos purportedly written by Bush's late squadron leader, saying they appeared to have been created on a computer and not a typewriter that was in use during the 1970s.

CBS strongly defended its story, and it wasn't until a week later — after the military leader's former secretary said she believed the memos were fake — did the news division admit they were questionable.

Even then, Rather said no one had disputed the story's premise: that the future president had pulled strings to get a relatively cushy National Guard assignment and failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

Rather this weekend interviewed Bill Burkett, a retired Texas National Guard official who has been mentioned as a possible source for the documents. His interview was to be broadcast on "CBS Evening News" on Monday.

CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.

The Associated Press could not immediately reach Burkett for comment.

Rather said he would not have gone ahead with the story Burkett admitted that the documents were not authentic.

"That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where — if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question," he said.

"Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully," he added.

The documents were said to have been written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, indicating he was being pressured to "sugarcoat" the performance ratings of a young Bush, then the son of a Texas congressman, and that Bush failed to follow orders to take a physical. Killian died in 1984.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was told about the CBS statement as he flew to Derry, N.H.

"CBS is now for the first time publicly acknowledging that the documents were likely forged and they came from a discredited source," McClellan said. "There are a number of serious questions that remain unanswered and they need to be answered. Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact is not an unimpeachable source as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited and so this raises a lot of questions. There were media reports about Mr. Burkett having senior level contacts with the Kerry campaign."

For "60 Minutes," it's the biggest ethical mess since the 1995 incident captured in the movie, "The Insider," which depicted the newsmagazine caving to pressure from CBS lawyers and not airing a whistleblowing report from an ex-tobacco executive.

The call for an independent review was also reminiscent of CNN's "Tailwind" scandal in 1998. The cable network retracted a story that the U.S. military had used nerve gas in Laos during the Vietnam war.

 

[amicus]

R. Richard....You may not get a large response to this post....there is a lot hanging like chad, on the periphery.


Since about 1964, the network news outlets, ABC, CBS, NBC, have been poltical biased toward the left in American politics.

It does not take a great deal of research to discover the political affiliation of the news Anchors, news directors and managing editors of these outlets. One can even read their books, listen to their public appearance statements or make a list of positions held over the years.

There is also the matter of complicity between CBS and membes of the Democrat National Committee leaders.

There is also the bold and almost unbelievable statement by Dan Rather himself, that it did not matter if the documents were valid or not, that the 'core of the story' was true and unchallenged.

This was an open admission that a major news network had taken a political position, in the last few weeks of a Presidential election, to influence the outcome. That is illegal.

Broadcast television is regulated by the FCC the Federal Communications Commission as the 'government' seems to think that the radio spectrum over which these stations broadcast, is 'government property' and one can only broadcast with permission. I challenge that...of course.

However, I have filed a complaint with the FCC, asking for an investigation of CBS, and recommending that the license of that network be revoked.

This is not just a tempest in a teapot...it will have long lasting reverberations throughtout the broadcast industry and draw even more attention to the biased activities of the major networks.


amicus...

 

[R. Richard]

amicus:
I am, of course, aware of the leftist political bias of the US media. However, there is a difference between 'slanting' of news and broadcasting outright lies and/or carelessness that amounts to broadcasting lies.

As you point out, what was done was not only disgraceful, it was downright illegal.

I was hoping to get more feedback from Literotica members.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

For many here, bad for Bush= Good. You will find outage at the swift boat ads, but a curious lack of outrage over anything negative to the Bush ticket.

*shrugs*

It's an election year.

-Colly

 

[Wildcard Ky]

You won't get a lot of feedback on this. An overwhelming majority of this site is definitely left, and there is a good number of Bush haters 'round these parts.

If it were a Michael Moore "documentary" ( ) the thread would be 10 pages long. Since this is something that could be construed as good for Bush, it will go largely unresponded to.

I don't think anything will come of this. Burkett has been hung out to dry and he will take the abuse and blame. Rather will retire in the spring as scheduled, and CBS will handle things internally. It will eventually be forgotten just like the exploding Chevy trucks on Dateline NBC was.

One thing I find a bit ironic and to me shows the true nature of the partisanship and bias on the part of CBS is that they've not apologized to Bush for this. Here's the two main apology lines:

"We should not have used them," CBS News President Andrew Heyward said. "That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."


"We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry," he (Rather) said.

It was a mistake to use them. I'm sorry for the mistake in judgement. Where's the part about "To the president, we apologize for airing a story about you based on documents given to us by an individual that purposely misled us. It was never our intention to have a story based on false documents."

IMO they owe Bush a personal apology. Like the man or not, he was wronged by CBS with this story as it was presented. CBS admits it was wrong, but won't apologize to the person that the story was about. That my friends, is a classic example of bias and having an agenda.

 

[cantdog]

Never fear, Wildcard, they'll do that. It's never in the interest of the news outlets to remain on the bad side of power.

Your demand for an apology is probably very late.

 

[Boota]

CBS ignored their own fact checkers on this and went ahead with airing it against their own experts judgment. That was just plain stupid.

However...

There is a lot of truth in what was in the false documents. Of course, all of that will be negated by the forgeries themselves. People who knew Killian when he was alive said that the documents were exactly what he thought of Bush. He just never wrote it down in official documents.

CBS was beyond stupid in airing something like this without stone cold verification.

All this VietNam/desertion shit aside, I have plenty of up to date and relevent reasons for being against GWB. I don't care what he did in the early seventies. My problems are with what he's done since he became President.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

CBS apologized Monday and said it was misled about the authenticity of documents used to support a "60 Minutes" story that questioned President Bush's Vietnam War-era National Guard service, after several experts denounced them as fakes.

"We should not have used them," CBS News President Andrew Heyward said. "That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

CBS also said it was commissioning an independent panel to review the incident, and would announce the name of the participants shortly

While you are celebrating this regrettable blunder by one news service, remember that this is not the first news service to be forced to apologize to the public for shoddy reporting,

Unlike The New York Times back on May 27, 2004, following the sudden fall of Ahmad Chalabi, reporter Judith Miller's most famous source for the information about WMD in Iraq, CBS could not bury their mea culpa on Page A10 They are a televison news service and not being able to sneak corrections into the back pages comes with the territory. Not that it helped The New York Times. When one news service slips up, every other news service clears as much time, or space, as necessary to report the story fully.

This year, two different news services reporting about two different wars published two different errors and were forced to make two different retractions.

For once, both factions can agree to agree that we need more accountability in our news media.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It's not like these documents shocked anyone when they were first revealed. The Bush campaign didn't even come out and dispute their veracity, which says to me that they weren't entirely surprised about what the papers purported to say.

For those of us who were around back during Viet Nam, the very fact that GWB got into the TexasAir National Guard already speaks volumes. Competition to get into the guard and the Coast Guard was fierce, and those of us who knew people who mortagaged their souls to try and get in know that GWB got in because of Daddy and only because of Daddy. He sure didn't do it on grades and character, and getting into the guard was harder than getting into West Point.

We already know he was absent pretty much throughout his service, whether with permission or without doesn't really matter. He got a rich boy's deferment, any way you slice it, and never had to face the decisions and soul searching that the rest of us went through.

---dr.M.

 

[GingerV]

CBS screwed up big time, and has probably done more harm to themselves and any anti-Bush cause than the documents (should they be real) could do good. It was stupid, and careless, and they should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

That said, be VERY clear about what they're appologising for. It's not certain that these are forgeries from what I've read. CBS is appologising because they can't demonstrate that they AREN'T. One of the documents is most definately questionable, but it's not disproven. They shouldn't have run on a questionable document, in any case. But don't let the Rove machine convince you that this means Bush did honorable service. Even in the absense of this document, it's clear the guy got special treatment and then made a mockery of the institution he was so 'lucky' as to have gotten into.

G

 

[R. Richard]

The discussion that has finally come is what I had hoped for when I posted the article. I do not have a liberal or a conservative agenda here.

The very great problem that I saw was that Bush was being attacked because people disliked him, not because of any hard evidence of wrongdoing. If we let that sort of personal attack go unchallenged, then discussion degenerates into loud, nasty insults with very little thought behind the noise.

IMHO that last is very bad.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

What I see here is that CBS has muzzeled itself more throughly and completely than Rove, GWB or anyone in the administration could have done with reams of court orders. If they do get a big scoop, if it's embarassing to the president, no one will believe them who isn't already against Bush. They are as effectively labled pro Kerry, Anti Bush as Al jeezera is labled Pro terrorist.

In simplest terms, of the four major networks, the GOP can now safely count one on their side (Fox) and one neutralized (CBS). It will also force NBC and ABC to be extremely diligent and careful with what they air.

I don't know if CBS owes the President an I'm sorry, so much as GWB owes them a thank you.

Just my 2 cents

-Colly

 

[BigAndTall]

The discussion that has finally come is what I had hoped for when I posted the article. I do not have a liberal or a conservative agenda here.

The very great problem that I saw was that Bush was being attacked because people disliked him, not because of any hard evidence of wrongdoing. If we let that sort of personal attack go unchallenged, then discussion degenerates into loud, nasty insults with very little thought behind the noise.

IMHO that last is very bad.

Thats why I rarely speak on political matters. Colly knows how I feel on certian issues, but the side that really really dislikes bush I find it impossible to ever discuss anything with as I feel i get shouted (or typed) down.

I am personally disgusted with CBS for what they have done to their once respected organization. But in fairness to them, all the networks at some point "make" news. (Like NBC with the sparklers catching a pick up on fire).

 

[Couture]

RHowever, I have filed a complaint with the FCC, asking for an investigation of CBS, and recommending that the license of that network be revoked.

amicus...

If only we could get Bush's presidency revoked for the lies he's told and the lives he's cost.

 

[BigAndTall]

If only we could get Bush's presidency revoked for the lies he's told and the lives he's cost.

What timing for an example of just what i meant.

 

[Couture]

I don't think I shouted or typed you down. As a matter of fact, I was responding to another post.

I do take issue that people will cry foul and ask that CBS's license be revoked, will ignore the fact that Bush used forged documents (ie Niger yellowcake uranium) in his State of the Union address. To make matters worse, this administration went on to out a CIA operative in revenge for this being exposed to the public.

Where's the outrage?

 

[minsue]

For many here, bad for Bush= Good. You will find outage at the swift boat ads, but a curious lack of outrage over anything negative to the Bush ticket.

*shrugs*

It's an election year.

-Colly

Disclaimer:I'm too tired to read the entire thread so I apologize if this has already been said.



How on earth is this bad for Bush?

What CBS has managed to do is to cast doubt on every factual report on Bush's service or lack thereof. The Chicken Little reporting hasn't hurt Bush in any way that I can see.

 

[shereads]

RR, the documents have not been proven fraudulent. The claim that the typeface wasn't available at the time has since been contradicted. What CBS has apologized for is rushing to run the story without checking its validity. That there is a question of fraud doesn't mean there is fraud; it does mean that CBS should have done their job as investigative journalists, and actually investigated.

The documents were only a small part of their story, though, and it's unfortunate that so little attention has been paid to the undisputed fact:

Bush's name somehow leaped to the front of a long waiting list for National Guard service, three weeks before he would have lost his deferment status. Someone's place in line was taken away, and that unknown man went to Vietnam in George W. Bush's place. That's a fact.

Whether or not GWB's replacement died in Vietnam we'll never know. We do know that one less draftee was required because John Kerry volunteered for service. Yet he's not given credit for that; instead he's accused of not having been injured enough. This, by the party that spend 8 years with their panties in a tangle because a "draft dodger" was commander in chief.

The story about the documents ran with a banner headline in my local newspaper. Meanwhile, buried in a three-inch story at the bottom corner of the same page was the result of a military investigation of John Kerry's medals. They were, contrary to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth television campaign, awarded properly and without any deviation from the normal procedure.

In other words, there is now a proven fraud against Kerry by the Swift Boaters. Have you heard a peep about that from the broadcast media? I haven't.

 

[Edward Teach]

I haven't had much respect for CBS since they backed down from running the Brown & Williamson tobacco story years ago. In fact, I haven't had a great deal of respect for any of the TV networks for a good while - it is TV and ratings first, news second.

That said, I still have not seen any reports of proof that the documents are false. Perhaps I missed it. I have seen FOX News stating with certainty from day one that the documents are false. In other words, FOX was intentionally reporting a lie.

All I have seen is that CBS acknowledges that they were misled (whatever that means) by Burkett, that they do not yet know if the documents are real.

Burkett admits to "misleading" CBS, denies forging the documents, does not know it the documents are authentic, said that he warned CBS to check the documents, but will not reveal where he got them.

All that aside, I am not aware of anyone denying that what is contained in the documents is true.

Ed

 

[shereads]

I haven't had much respect for CBS since they backed down from running the Brown & Williamson tobacco story years ago. In fact, I haven't had a great deal of respect for any of the TV networks for a good while - it is TV and ratings first, news second.

But Mike Wallace kicked butt when he was played by Christopher Plummer in "The Insider," the movie about that case.

That said, I still have not seen any reports of proof that the documents are false. Perhaps I missed it. I have seen FOX News stating with certainty from day one that the documents are false. In other words, FOX was intentionally reporting a lie.

I saw this exchange on a local TV talk show this morning:

Host: "...alledges that the documents may not be authentic."

Hostess: "That's right, the whole thing has turned out to be a fraud!"

 

[GingerV]

In the same way that there are people who hate Bush, and are letting that become the issue....the problem here is that there are people who like him and WANT his guard service to have been aboveboard and honorable.

They're willing to ignore the evidence that still stands and misinterpret the appology.

Personally, I'm as miffed about the vagueness of the appology as I am that they ran the story early.

I feel very strongly, for completely practical reasons, that the country would be better if they retired this president. But I have to believe there's enough evidence out there already! More than that, the most overwhelming reasons have nothing to do with what he (or any other candidate) did when they were scared to death in the late 60s and early 70s. Lots of people were pulling every string they could get hold of. It's not the point. That he was less than honest about it over the last 4 years is the least of what I feel he should be held accountable for. But this is what the election's going to be judged on now...and CBS blew it.

G

 

[Weird Harold]

Someone's place in line was taken away, and that unknown man went to Vietnam in George W. Bush's place. That's a fact.

No, SR, that's an unwarranted assumption.

First, being drafted was not a sentence to Vietnam.

Second, National Guard Service was not a guarantee of avoiding Vietnam -- althoughit certainly increased the odds of not going.

Third, being on a waiting list for enlistment in the Guard, Reserve, or any other branch of the military was often sufficent to avoid the Draft -- it was entirely up to the local draft boards.

The only thing that GWB's political pull accomplished for anyone else on the waiting list was to cause them to wait a bit longer.

The only thing that's important about either candidate's serivce records is they both hav a DD214 coded for an Honorable Discharge.

If you look hard enough, you can find irregularities in almost any Vietnam era military member's service record. Neither candidate's Vietnam era service records -- or Clinton's escape into higher education -- is anything that thousands of other young men of that time didn't do, or would have loved to do if they didn't.

GingerV:
In the same way that there are people who hate Bush, and are letting that become the issue....the problem here is that there are people who like him and WANT his guard service to have been aboveboard and honorable.

They're willing to ignore the evidence that still stands and misinterpret the appology.

I'm not willing to ignore the evidence that still stands, I just don't care what it proves either way.

Vietnam and National Guard service are non-issues to anyone who has the least clue about how the draft and military actually functioned in that era.

 

[Edward Teach]

No, SR, that's an unwarranted assumption.

First, being drafted was not a sentence to Vietnam.

Second, National Guard Service was not a guarantee of avoiding Vietnam -- althoughit certainly increased the odds of not going.

Third, being on a waiting list for enlistment in the Guard, Reserve, or any other branch of the military was often sufficent to avoid the Draft -- it was entirely up to the local draft boards.

The only thing that GWB's political pull accomplished for anyone else on the waiting list was to cause them to wait a bit longer.

The only thing that's important about either candidate's serivce records is they both hav a DD214 coded for an Honorable Discharge.

If you look hard enough, you can find irregularities in almost any Vietnam era military member's service record. Neither candidate's Vietnam era service records -- or Clinton's escape into higher education -- is anything that thousands of other young men of that time didn't do, or would have loved to do if they didn't.



I'm not willing to ignore the evidence that still stands, I just don't care what it proves either way.

Vietnam and National Guard service are non-issues to anyone who has the least clue about how the draft and military actually functioned in that era.

WH, correct me if I am wrong but an absolute, predetermined, number of people were drafted each month. Of those drafted, an absolute number was sent to Viet Nam. Therefore, whenever someone was taken out of line, whether for deferrment, Guard service, desertion or anything else, another person was called up from the waiting list to take that place in line.

Somewhere down the line, and it may have been the very last person drafted, someone had to replace Bush in the draft.

Ed

 

[Weird Harold]

Somewhere down the line, and it may have been the very last person drafted, someone had to replace Bush in the draft.

Nope, that's fallacious logic.

It could just easily be argued that by forcing himself onto the rolls of the Texas National Guard, he reduced the number of people actually drafted by one.

There's no evidence that the Texas National Guard bumped anyone from the waiting list instead of accepting an overage in their enlistment goal for that month.

The Draft was a complex lottery system and just because one draft board fell short or went over it's quota doesn't mean that some other local draft board adjusted it's quotas to compensate.

For all I know, I might have been the person who got the draft notice fate meant for GWB -- the one I had to politely decline because my squadron commander wouldn't let me leave Vietnam to report for the draft.

Not everyone who was vulnerable to the draft got drafted, not everyone who got got a "notice to report" was inducted, and not everyone who was inducted went to Vietnam.

In fact, the Draft actually directly affected very few people of the total numbers that it could have affected. Anyone with any sense avoided being drafted however they could -- including me; I joined the Air Force in part to avoid Vietnam and the Draft.

It didn't work to avoid Vietnam, but it did avoid the Draft.

Incidently, I notice that the Media and Democrats are carefully not making an issue of GWB's alcoholism and drug use during the Vietnam era -- could that be because they don't want anyoe digging into John Kerry's use (or at least tolerance of use by his subordinates) of drugs in the Vietnam Era?

 

[Edward Teach]

Nope, that's fallacious logic.

It could just easily be argued that by forcing himself onto the rolls of the Texas National Guard, he reduced the number of people actually drafted by one.

WH, I will admit that this is a theoretical argument that some single individual took Bush's place but the theory holds.

Let's break it down just a bit. Carry it to the absurd and see what we get.

According to your logic if everyone eligible for the draft got a deferment, then there would still be enough draftees. No. The draft pool would have to be expanded to make up for all those hundreds of thousands deferred.

According to your logic if only one person were needed, Bush was next in line and skipped his turn then there would still be no need to call up someone else. No. Another person would be needed.

If everyone got into the Texas National Guard it would have room for them. No. There was a limit on how many could be in the TNG, there was a waiting list and GWB took one of those places.

WH, I was around then too. The age of draftees was expanded with the demand and the reasons for exemption were decreased. In the beginning, being married exempted you. That changed. Then being married with a child exempted you. I believe that at the end of the draft they were taking married men with two children.

I knew a lot of people who rushed back to grad school.

A dentist friend suddenly decided to give up his practice, go back to school to become an orthodontist, teach in the dental school and have another child.

Someone had to take his place too.

Ed