Rather Admits Memos are Fake

[Snide]

I'd fake an assassination attempt on myself the last week in October, for that matter, if I were Bush, to gain sympathy and make the threat of terrorism seem more immediate.)

Weak. If I were (Kerry/Bush), I'd hire a sniper to intentionally miss (Bush/Kerry), then start rumors that (Bush/Kerry) faked it to gain sympathy votes.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The ineptness of the forgeries does support the notion that someone wanted them to be exposed as forgeries, and on the face of it, the one with the most to gain would appear to be Bush.

Perhaps more will develop.

On the other hand...it might be a triple bluff. Kerry wants you to think that Bush wants you to think Kerry had the memos forged. Or quadruple! Or quintuple! Maybe they just lost track, and exposed it all rather than work out which one actually did it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Weak. If I were (Kerry/Bush), I'd hire a sniper to intentionally miss (Bush/Kerry), then start rumors that (Bush/Kerry) faked it to gain sympathy votes.

Ah, but I'd counter that by having the assassination attempt actually succeed. That's called commitment to a bit.

 

[Rob Lister]

The ineptness of the forgeries does support the notion that someone wanted them to be exposed as forgeries, and on the face of it, the one with the most to gain would appear to be Bush.

Perhaps more will develop.

Perhaps you are right. The more liberally inclined rumor mills are already convinced of this. I'm not. It certainly does help Bush. It pretty much lays waste to the guard issue in right-leaning/fence-sitting people. Not that the issue (the original issue) had that much influence with them anyway.

Unless there is pretty strong evidence to support this, and not just rhetoric and spin, I don't think anyone on the right or in the middle is going to buy it. The circumstantial evidence pointing to the other party is already more than substantial. And that may well make a difference to many.

Besides, if this is a Rovian Plot, well...Kerry may just as well drop out now because he doesn't have a chance against such genius.

 

[rikzilla]

The ineptness of the forgeries does support the notion that someone wanted them to be exposed as forgeries, and on the face of it, the one with the most to gain would appear to be Bush.

Perhaps more will develop.

Which again begs the question...."How could Dapper Dan be so friggin' stoopid?!"

Perhaps the real coup for the Republican operatives in this conspiracy theory was their ability to get Burkett to be their front man. Or is it possible Burkett has been faking his hatred for Bush all these years just to foist this thing off on CBS??

Sure Bush has alot to gain....but this was a pure gift from above. When your enemies are stupid enough to attack you with a circular firing squad...all you gotta do is duck and laugh!

-z

 

[Rob Lister]

Which again begs the question...."How could Dapper Dan be so friggin' stoopid?!"

Perhaps the real coup for the Republican operatives in this conspiracy theory was their ability to get Burkett to be their front man. Or is it possible Burkett has been faking his hatred for Bush all these years just to foist this thing off on CBS??

Sure Bush has alot to gain....but this was a pure gift from above. When your enemies are stupid enough to attack you with a circular firing squad...all you gotta do is duck and laugh!

-z

This post reminds me of a political cartoon.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Is Rather not halfway admitting he got played not worthy of a new thread?

The whole goddamned incident is worthy of one thread, but not ONE THREAD PER DAY. And as long as you are starting multiple threads, why not start one about how Bush is NOT admitting he got played.

 

[rikzilla]

The whole goddamned incident is worthy of one thread, but not ONE THREAD PER DAY. And as long as you are starting multiple threads, why not start one about how Bush is NOT admitting he got played.

How 'bout we start another thread on why it is that Kitty Kelley get's a seat on the Today show, but Katie hasn't had time to interview a single SwiftBoat Vet....Bill Burkett gets to use CBS as a megaphone for his dummied up memo,....but out of 264 Vietnam Swiftboat Vets, not a single one gets a minute of CBS news exposure.

What's up with that?

-z

 

[Dorian Gray]

How 'bout we start another thread on why it is that Kitty Kelley get's a seat on the Today show, but Katie hasn't had time to interview a single SwiftBoat Vet....Bill Burkett gets to use CBS as a megaphone for his dummied up memo,....but out of 264 Vietnam Swiftboat Vets, not a single one gets a minute of CBS news exposure.

What's up with that?

The ones that SUPPORT Kerry haven't been on there either.

 

[Rob Lister]

The ones that SUPPORT Kerry haven't been on there either.

Dan's been on TV every weeknight since Kerrywas nominated.



Get a clue. The media may be far to conservative for your taste but is it possible that this is because you are so far to the left that you see even them as being on the right. If you call FOX conservative, I'd agree wholeheartedly but only because they are closer to my perspective than any of the others. They, by the way, HAVE presented swiftvet dialog as well as that from moveon.

I think MSNBC might have as well but I can't remember exactly and I can't find a link. I would devote more time to it but...why bother?

 

[Luke T.]

The ineptness of the forgeries does support the notion that someone wanted them to be exposed as forgeries, and on the face of it, the one with the most to gain would appear to be Bush.

Perhaps more will develop.

Desperate, slanderous, wishful thinking.

 

[BPSCG]

How 'bout we start another thread on why it is that Kitty Kelley get's a seat on the Today show, but Katie hasn't had time to interview a single SwiftBoat Vet....Bill Burkett gets to use CBS as a megaphone for his dummied up memo,....but out of 264 Vietnam Swiftboat Vets, not a single one gets a minute of CBS news exposure.

What's up with that?

The ones that SUPPORT Kerry haven't been on there either.

Well, there aren't that many of them, to begin with, and from what I've seen, they may not be the people you want to put in front of the camera. I saw one of them on Fox News just before the Democratic convention. The anchor was tossing Larry King-type softballs at him, along the lines of "So why do you support Senator Kerry?" The guy just answered every question with stuff like ,"Well, um, he saved my life*... he's a good man...I think he'd be a good president..." I honestly felt a little bad for the guy; he's obviously not used to dealing with the press and may not be too current on the actual issues, but here he is on a studio monitor with a camera in his face and a director pointing at him, and Hey! You're on national television!!!. Not quite "deer in the headlights", but clearly not comfortable.

*I'm assuming this was Rassmussen (or whatever his name is), the guy Kerry pulled out of the water.

 

[corplinx]

The whole goddamned incident is worthy of one thread, but not ONE THREAD PER DAY. And as long as you are starting multiple threads, why not start one about how Bush is NOT admitting he got played.

Too bad I've only started one in like a week, take your trolling to democratunderground where its considered rational discourse.

 

[Dorian Gray]

an·te·ce·dent P Pronunciation Key (nt-sdnt)
adj.
Going before; preceding.

n.
1. One that precedes another.
2. a. A preceding occurrence, cause, or event. See Synonyms at cause.
b. antecedents The important events and occurrences in one's early life.
3. antecedents One's ancestors.
4. Grammar. The word, phrase, or clause that determines what a pronoun refers to, as the children in The teacher asked the children where they were going.
5. Mathematics. The first term of a ratio.
6. Logic. The conditional member of a hypothetical proposition.

Familiarize yourself with this word, Rob - especially Number 4, which I have conveniently highlighted for you. In the sentence
"The ones that SUPPORT Kerry haven't been on there either."
"ones" refers to Swiftboat Veterans.

To hold your hand on this even further, Rikzilla complained that none of the anti-Kerry SBVs got on the Today show. I was pointing out that none of the ones who were pro-Kerry got on there either.

To address the less erroneous portion of your post, did FOX have any SBVs on that supported Kerry, or just those against him? Also, did they have any of the SBVs who had previously praised Kerry mightily, but now have flipped on that position?

As for you, Corplinx:

Too bad I've only started one in like a week, take your trolling to democratunderground where its considered rational discourse.

You have started 7 threads about the memos. Start dates:

09-12-2004 - NBC on Memo, nothing to see here
09-14-2004 - Skepticism and The Memo Redux
09-15-2004 - CBS continues doing Kerry's Dirty Work
09-16-2004 - FAIR.org crazy over memogate
09-16-2004 - Nonskepticism and the Memo
09-17-2004 - Rather Gets Surreal
09-21-2004 - Rather Admits Memos are Fake

Others:
09-12-2004 - Skepticism and the memo controversy
09-15-2004 - Secretary: Memos are forgeries, but..
09-17-2004 - Occam's Razor, and the memo
09-22-2004 - USA Today: CBS gave memo source Kerry campaign phone number as part of negotiations

One per day was hyperbole, to make a point - although from 9/12 to 9/17, you started about one per day. There are enough threads on this subject, and most of them are yours - yet you never have anything new to say.

 

[Rob Lister]

Familiarize yourself with this word, Rob -...yada yada...

To address the less erroneous portion of your post, did FOX have any SBVs on that supported Kerry, or just those against him?

Yes. They have interviewed those for and those against, if recollection serves (and I think it does because BPSCG confirms at least one FOR Kerry).

 

[Upchurch]

The Daily Show's take called "Headlines: Media Culpa". Stephen Colbert's analysis cracks me up. "Somewhere Walter Cronkite is rolling over in his grave."




Okay, that wasn't the funniest part, but I didn't want to give away the punch line.

 

[crimresearch]

<SNIP>
...One per day was hyperbole, to make a point - although from 9/12 to 9/17, you started about one per day. There are enough threads on this subject, and most of them are yours - yet you never have anything new to say.

But he is doing a good job of countering your desperate attempts to divert attention from the questions that this episode raises.

 

[Rob Lister]

But he is doing a good job of countering your desperate attempts to divert attention from the questions that this episode raises.

Indeed.

 

[Dorian Gray]

But he is doing a good job of countering your desperate attempts to divert attention from the questions that this episode raises.

Nonsense. First of all, this entire memo thing serves as a diversion from Bush's DESERTION of the TANG.
As for questions: Faulty information, acted upon anyway? Found out not to be true, but spun to 'unable to be verified'? The questions it raises, which I have addressed in one or more of the other threads:

1) Why do conservatives trip over themselves to apologize for Bush acting on flawed information, drawing connections that weren't there, attempting to float forgeries as the real thing, and depicting Saddam as a grave and gathering danger, especially when as recently as February 2001 Colin Powell gave a speech saying that the sanctions were working and Saddam has no weapons?

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
(thanks to Rhoadp)
And then of course, after having no WMDs in 2001 Saddam develops massive stockpiles of them, according to Powell, Bush, Cheney, Blair, etc. What the hell happened to this intelligence in just a few months? Can you say Cherrypicking? Powell also turned into a false-document-pusher too.

2) Why, in light of the above, is Rather dismissed as a fraud when Bush is the second biggest fraud in history? (Hint: WWII resulted from the biggest fraud.)

3) Isn't it obvious that the memo situation was analagous to the Iraq situation, and the end result was Rather apologized while Bush became an apologist?

 

[Skeptic]

Corplinx, there are too many parallels between the memo and the Iraq war.

(puzzled look)

You're off to "Through the Looking Glass" land, more specifically to the mad tea party: "there are too many parallels between a raven and a writing desk".

It has become obvious that you derive some sort of pleasure from starting threads about memos.

The pleasure we derive here has little to do with the memos themselves, and have everything to do with a larger issue. The foiling of evil plans in ways unexpected by the bad-guy plotter, is a theatrical devise that pleases audiences since at least The Merchant of Venice, but it isn't often that it plays out in real life in such a satisfying manner.

Rather with his memos, and Moore with his movie for that matter, plotted to cause GWB's downfall by "exposing" him as a monster. They knew--or should have known--that their "evidence" is at best highly suspect or, in Moore's case, simply faked; but that didn't matter, since Bush-hatered had consumed them both, apparently allowing them to think of nothing else. They believed that, surely, people will believe what they say nevetheless, as long as they do so from a Hollywood movie or the "60 minutes" studio.

What both had forgotten is the "new media"--the internet, bloggers, etc. Within hours of their movie or TV show, their "exposures" were ripped to shreds by internet posters, and within a day or two, the same was done by more traditional sources. The result in both cases? Their own reputation, not Bush's, was destroyed. Is there anybody, except on the "Hard Left", that believes anything these two say any more?

In other words, we have here the same sort of satisfaction we find every time a hypocritical liar is exposed as such, and every time a plot to destroy an innocent target blows up in the plotter's face.