• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dan Rather SUES!

Random said:
Um, Bush didn’t show up to complete his National Guard duty. I don’t know of anyone who seriously argues that he did. The media went into overdrive to hype the forgery angle, and bent over backwards to avoid the fact that Bush didn’t show up. It would have been funny if it was not so sad.
Click to expand...

It's a man bites dog thing. We already knew GWB skated his way through his military obligation on family influence, the precise details were almost irrelevant. The American electorate were well aware of his failings and voted him into office anyway. Honestly, the Democrats deserve a large share of the blame for failing to put up a better alternative.

Dan Rather, the venerable icon of CBS news being involved with forged documents apparently with the intent of throwing a presidential election? That's new and a big deal! Of course that's huge!

And let's be honest, Bush may have skated through the national guard on family influence, but because Dan Rather effed this story up so bad, it's not exactly clear if he met his legal obligations or not.

And now we have the kook factor. Dan Rather immersed in denial, now believing his problems are not the result of his own screw-up, but some machinations against him. Now we watch for the same reasons we pay attention to OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson. It's fascinating to observe how far down these icons can plunge themselves.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Dan Rather is not entitled to a Job. CBS can hire or fire him at will, with the constraint being that any contractual deals on pay or severence package must legally be paid to him per the employment contract.

He is not the first, nor the only, person to lose a position as a scapegoat for an event that embarasses an organization.

For many years he reaped the benefit of being the face of CBS. It earned him more than money, it earned him fame and things like appearances on the Tonight Show.

Well, when you are the face, you also get to take the facial. The public apology, as I see it, was part of him being the face of CBS news. You get the goodies, and the baddies, when you are the big dog.

If Rather is suing over "a wrongful termination for cause," I have every confidence a court will find for him, or CBS, correctly based on the merits of the case.

The charge that the administration censored CBS is a curious one. Needs more meat.

DR
Click to expand...


You contradict yourself in the same post. You're insane.
 
So when it was proven that his "fake but true" proof was printed with MS Word, which had a font that didn't exist in the 70s, nor was there a typewriter at the time that would print that font WITH variable width...

I guess since the goal was a pious one, the means to the ends were legitimate?

I'd hate to be tried by your jury.

"Well, your honor. We have people saying that SMZ was a dirty SOB, and well, here's a re-typed up proof of something he typed up on his Mommy's typewriter in 1975 at the age of 3. Nevermind that it's printed with an HP LaserJet, with Comic Sans font, and then run through a photocopier 100 times to make it look older... It's the real deal! Now put him away for LIFE!"
 
The Painter said:
Reality and you are not friends. If it's true they wouldn't have fired Dan, or the 3 to 6 other people fired. Fake + Forged = Untrue. That's reality.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that if someone forges the Declaration of Independence, that means the real document never really existed?
 
Billdave2 said:
I believe there is a verified original to compare it to, so your example is not valid.
Click to expand...
My example is valid, since they had the testimony of the secretary who worked in the office that the documents supposedly came from, verifying the contents.
 
JoeEllison said:
So, you're saying that if someone forges the Declaration of Independence, that means the real document never really existed?
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between a historical document that had more than one copy made of it and intentionally distributed since 1776, as well as had it's very creation documented from start to finish, and caused a war... And a made up memo from some old lady who had an agenda given to a man who had an agenda and a soapbox in front of millions of people.
 
You guys do know that Bush doesn't deny the basic facts of this, right?
 
JoeEllison said:
My example is valid, since they had the testimony of the secretary who worked in the office that the documents supposedly came from, verifying the contents.
Click to expand...

"I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."
A ringing endorsement of validity!
 
JoeEllison said:
You guys do know that Bush doesn't deny the basic facts of this, right?
Click to expand...

What good would it do for him to deny this? You have made up your mind that it happened and no amount of evidence will convince you. There is no evidence that these documents have any basis in fact except the word of the man who forged them (who is an admitted Bush hater) and the statement of a women who says it "sounds like" it could be true.

The fact is these documents were forgeries. End of story. To justify them by trying to say that they are "fake but true" is disingenious at best.
 
Last edited:
Billdave2 said:
Do you deny that you have stopped beating your wife?

What good would it do for him to deny this? You have made up your mind that it happened and no amount of evidence will convince you. There is no evidence that these documents have any basis in fact except the word of the man who forged them (who is an admitted Bush hater) and the statement of a women who says it "sounds like" it could be true.

The fact is these documents were forgeries. End of story. To justify them by trying to say that they are "fake but true" is disingenious at best.
Click to expand...

So, you don't know that Bush WAS suspended from flying for missing a physical, and that he has admitted this to be true and has even offered an excuse for it?
 
JoeEllison said:
So, you're saying that if someone forges the Declaration of Independence, that means the real document never really existed?
Click to expand...


Nobody said that. What is being said is that if you're going to present evidence for anything, you need to make sure your evidence isn't faked.

That's true no matter what your underlying political position.
 
JoeEllison said:
So, you don't know that Bush WAS suspended from flying for missing a physical, and that he has admitted this to be true and has even offered an excuse for it?
Click to expand...

Have you read the document? There is more there than whether or not Bush took the physical (no one says that he did). The memo concern political pressure being placed on Killian to cover up for Bush. This is what is disputed.
 
Mycroft said:
What is being said is that if you're going to present evidence for anything, you need to make sure your evidence isn't faked.

That's true no matter what your underlying political position.
Click to expand...

No, what people seem to be saying is that because one piece of evidence was faked, there is absolutely no evidence. That position is simply not true. Of course, that was the way it was spun to satisfy the morons who voted for BushBush supporters... :rolleyes:
 
JoeEllison said:
No, what people seem to be saying is that because one piece of evidence was faked, there is absolutely no evidence. That position is simply not true. Of course, that was the way it was spun to satisfy the morons who voted for BushBush supporters... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Please provide this other evidence. I have not seen any.
 
Billdave2 said:
What good would it do for him to deny this? You have made up your mind that it happened and no amount of evidence will convince you. There is no evidence that these documents have any basis in fact except the word of the man who forged them (who is an admitted Bush hater) and the statement of a women who says it "sounds like" it could be true.
Click to expand...
How tough would it be for Bush to show he had been there? One person who remembered him being there? Where did he live while he was serving there? Did he have any friends? One official document saying that he showed up? How hard could it be?

Silence can speak volumes.
 
JoeEllison said:
No, what people seem to be saying is that because one piece of evidence was faked, there is absolutely no evidence. That position is simply not true. Of course, that was the way it was spun to satisfy the morons who voted for BushBush supporters... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. In general when people present fake evidence for something it tends to cast doubt on that something. Are you surprised?

Personally, I didn't vote for Bush, I don't like him, I'm looking forward to his leaving office, and I think he's probably the worst president to have been in office during my lifetime.

Having said that, I don't see any strong evidence that he didn't fulfill his legal requirement in the national guard. Could he/should he have done more? Well, his own press secretary said that according to the article quixotecoyote posted, but that itself doesn't make a scandal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom