Mapes and Rather: Davids vs. blogosphere Goliaths—or, who’s got the biggest cojones?
Mary Mapes is back.
Remember her? She had her fifteen minutes of fame—in her case, unwanted notoriety—as one of the 60 Minutes producers who worked on the program featuring the obviously forged Killian memos. In this extraordinary document, Mapes is defending herself and her old friend Dan Rather, “legendary reporter…[who] still has more reportorial testosterone than the entire employee roster at FOX News.”
Whew. This is the level of argument we’ve come down to in journalism today: who’s got the biggest cojones.
But perhaps the strangest thing about Mapes’s screed is her portrayal of Rather and herself, and others at CBS, as naive victims of a vast and rabid right-wing blogger conspiracy:
The fracas scared the bejeezus out of the CBS corporate types who were completely unaccustomed to the rough and tumble interaction of the blog world. Frankly, the foaming-at-the-mouth response scared me, too. These people WERE scary.
Mapes is an excellent example of the burgeoning modern tendency—partly based, I’m afraid, on the popularity of certain types of therapy—to claim victim status reflexively, almost as a point of pride. I’m not surprised that Mapes fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming evidence is that the memos were a forgery and that she and Rather were incompetent and mistaken, at the very least. But the extent of Mapes’s denial and projection, and her ability to see herself and Rather as unworldy, put-upon victims as well as ballsy heroes, is really quite extraordinary.
Instead of being the attackers, Mapes and Rather were victims of an assault (she uses the word many times), small Davids armed with tiny slingshots against the behemoth Goliaths of the blogosphere.
I’ve noticed those two words, “attack” and “assault,” becoming more and more popular in recent years. The difference between a valid criticism and a vicious and unwarranted assault has been almost erased.
Now I’m certain that some bloggers were pretty mean to Mary and Dan, and some of the nasty words that were said were of the “attack” variety. But to characterize the whole thing as some sort of unjustified smear, with no content whatsoever, is a profound distortion of the record and demonstrates a defensiveness and denial so complete it would be almost comic if it weren’t so sad.
It seems as though Ms. Mapes has convinced herself, somehow, that not only have bloggers been mean to her and Dan, but that their substantive claims about the memos have no justification.
What was their motive, then? Killing the messengers, of course:
What was different in our case was the brand new and bruising power of the conservative blogosphere, particularly the extremists among them. They formed a tightly knit community of keyboard assault artists who saw themselves as avenging angels of the right, determined to root out and decimate anything they believed to be disruptive to their worldview.
Mapes sticks to her guns about Bush’s guard service (about him not sticking to his guns, you might say), and accuses the blogosphere of plotting revenge merely because it could not stand the implications of what 60 Minutes was saying.
Mapes seems to think the right-wing blogosphere is organized; I guess she’s never heard of the “herding cats” metaphor so often applied:
Our having the temerity to say [Bush wimped out on his Guard service] on national TV was unforgivable and we had to be destroyed. [The bloggers] organized, with the help of longtime well-connected Republican activists, and began their assault.
Mapes brushes by the actual substance of the blogosphere’s complaints—the fact that the memos were forgeries, and at the very least CBS failed to exercise due diligence in discovering that fact—with a counterattack of her own:
Instantly, the far right blogosphere bully boys pronounced themselves experts on document analysis, and began attacking the form and font in the memos.
Mapes refers to the blogosphere’s convincing technical objections to the memos as “gigabytes of mind-numbing internet dissertations about the typeface.” Ah, those exhaustive and boring details—who needs them, and who has the patience to wade through them? Certainly not those who bring us a higher truth, such as the producers of 60 Minutes.
Here’s projection in full flower; Mapes describes those who had the boring effrontery to bring up those fonts and typefaces as having a “deceptive approach” to the subject, although what was deceptive seems to be that they focused (“blathered,” in Mapes’ demeaning phrase) on about whether the memos were forged rather than their all-important content:
These critics blathered on about everything but the content. They knew they would lose that argument, so they didn’t raise it. They focused on the most obscure, most difficult to decipher element of the story and dove in, attacking CBS, Dan Rather, me, the story and the horse we rode in on—without respite, relentlessly, for days.
Here’s a simple question for Ms. Mapes: why would the content of forged documents matter? Let’s try again: if documents are forged, their content is irrelevant, except as an artifact of whoever did the forging, and to give us a clue as to whatever that person’s agenda might be.
I fear that Mapes has fallen prey not only to a combination of paranoia and grandiosity, but to the strange post-modern idea that truth doesn’t matter as long as one’s heart is in the right place—and to the notion that anyone who would defend anything about President Bush has a heart that, by definition, has gone over to the Dark Side.
neo-neo –
really quite extraordinary, as you said, this particular piece of writing by Mapes.
It was the “everything but the content” line that caught my eye, too.
breathtaking the arrogance of our media elite; Mapes apparently has not got over her exile.
thanks for the great blog
I almost feel sorry for this walnut brained media dinosaur. Almost.
“Whew. . . . most . . . .”
May I respectfully suggest the word is “biggest,” or “largest.”
Well, Ozyripus, I put “biggest” in the title. But I will defer to your wisdom and make the text agree.
The fracas scared the bejeezus out of the CBS corporate types who were completely unaccustomed to the rough and tumble interaction of the blog world. Frankly, the foaming-at-the-mouth response scared me, too. These people WERE scary.
In other words, they were scared at being asked to support their findings, verify their sources, or debate meaning. Compare this with the people who drew and published “anti-Muslim” cartoons. They have reason to fear for their lives.
What was different in our case was the brand new and bruising power of the conservative blogosphere, particularly the extremists among them.
If you want “bruising” take up boxing. If you can’t stand a challenge to your ideas, get out of the newsroom, or put your work under the fiction heading where it belongs.
The word “extremist” it’s a very dangerous debating tactic. It’s an accusation and a taint. If they are extremists, and you take the time to listen to their arguments and judge them, then you are an “extremist sympathizer” and thus an extremist, and nobody should listen to you, either.
Any statement that uses this word has to be questioned rationally to its deepest roots, beginning with “what does the ‘extremist’ actually believe, advocate, and do?” It’s hard to catch yourself to do it, even when you’re aware of the effect.
The corollary is that if you want to argue from reason instead of reflex emotion, you should not use the word yourself: Say “he represents a radical and violent ” but don’t shortcut the meaning with the word “extremist.”
A request to the Sanity Squad: take a shot at this word, its effect on the listener/reader, its common use in the media and in public debate, and what it says about the people who use it.
They formed a tightly knit community of keyboard assault artists who saw themselves as avenging angels of the right, determined to root out and decimate anything they believed to be disruptive to their worldview.
Translation: They agreed with each other on. Mapes suggests that they agreed because they were a bloc, cutting off any debate on whether they formed a bloc because they agreed.
These critics blathered on about everything but the content. They knew they would lose that argument, so they didn’t raise it. They focused on the most obscure, most difficult to decipher element of the story and dove in, attacking CBS, Dan Rather, me, the story and the horse we rode in on–without respite, relentlessly, for days.
Manifestly false. Typography is hardly obscure in this age of word processing and font choice even in email. For a long time it was obscure. Today it’s only obscure if you can’t see the print on the paper (or the screen).
Manifestly false also in that various timelines were checked. Professional journalists and bloggers went far beyond CBS’s work. People who knew the the F-102 explained why volunteering to fly that more-dangerous-than-combat aircraft got him a place that few others wanted. Bush is supported by a coherent “narrative” that is supported by evidence and testimony. His accusers are not.
Once again, I botched the italics in the post above. The second ‘graph is mine, not a quote. Apologies to all. (Neo, you need a preview button!)
I suspect Dan’s Rathergate blind spot is a type of psychological defense mechanism. I suspect Dan Rather’s psyche can bear neither the jolt of acknowledging such a sloppily biased mess up, nor the jolt of acknowledging almost everyone in the U.S. knows he acted in such a sloppily biased fashion.
~~~~~~~~~~
Newsrooms do not need diversity of race and gender so much as they need diversity of political understanding. Why did Dan Rather and Mary Mapes fall for the false Texas Air National Guard documents? Answer: because the documents confirmed their pre-existing bias about GWBush. Nothing is so wonderful as something which confirms one’s pre-existing bias. Not one person existed in the CBS’ newsroom to say:
“Hold on. GWBush has not led a life filled with hypocrisy. Maybe we should check into these documents a bit more.”
Au contraire. Full speed ahead. No need to seriously, carefully validate the accuracy of those documents. EVERYONE in CBS’ newsroom KNEW IN THEIR GUT GWBush was an unexposed hypocrite. They also knew they were just the newsroom to expose hypocrisy which simply HAD TO BE TRUE, BECAUSE EVERYONE IN THE NEWSROOM SENSED IT WAS TRUE. This is how a major network came to stand behind an infamous explanation:
“Fake, but accurate.”
The saddest part is, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes haven’t even admitted to the “fake” part. I don’t believe it’s a reasoning thing vis a vis the circumstances of the story. I think it’s a psychological defense mechanism thing.
More at my blog.
Neo,
Rather is no milk-toast, laid back reader of the news. He is a gruff, pushy, arrogant…. manager of his domain.
I ran into him in 1994 when a friend, retired CBS reporter, Bernie Goldberg (Yep that Bernie) introduced me to Rather’s top brass at CBS, via a letter and then a phone call.
I was trying to get my prostate cancer treatment (Cryo Surgery — little known at that time) aired because my Medical Insurance refused to pay for it.
I am not sure it was Mapes with whom I talked but she ordered a team of reporters and camera techs to my home. They taped for about an hour.
Then, at the time of the operation, the same team came to the hospital and began to tape the procedure.
In the middle of the operation my Doc discovered the epidural catheter and been placed in the wrong area of the vertebrae, thus my lungs, kidneys, heart were shutting down. (Anesthesiologist’s fault).
While my Doc was furiously trying to save my life (BTW, he did), Dan Rather called three times and demanded to speak to my Doc. He was told that Dr. XYZ was in the operating room and could not be bothered. Obviously Dan was angry to be put off and began screaming and demanding of the operator, “Don’t you know who this is, This is Dan Rather with CBS News.” The operator put him through to the operating room, a nurse answered and asked my Doc if he wanted to speak to Dan. My Doc said, “No, I am in the middle of trying to save the life of a critical patient.” Dan screamed louder when the nurse told him NO!.
I found out later Dan was not interested in my case, only in that he thought he may have a scoop on new “medical fakery.” Dan was incensed that someone would rebuff him.
The film never aired and I am told it is “still in the can.” Dan is still up to his old tricks, and I am 11 years post treatment with zero cancer at the moment. (with cancer we never say “Cured.”)
Dan is a tired, old, has-been, manipulating loser.
ExP(Jack)
Isn’t it a contradiction to claim giant king-sized cojones at the same time being scared of a few bloggers?
I think if they had limited their complaint to something along the lines of “we did the story in good faith and don’t think we deserved to be let go,” people might have more sympathy for them. By pushing the whole Bush/Big Business/Blogosphere conspiracy angle, they’re presenting themselves as cranks.
Rather is still crusading. I suspect he believes that if he gets everyone – CBS management, maybe even some bloggers, maybe even George Bush, and of course, himself – on the stand, the Truth will be revealed and he’ll once again assume the mantle of his Noble Profession.
Thanks for your story, preacherman.
As for Mapes, who in hell argues about the “content” of forged documents? That’s lunacy. Like insisting that you are due two tens after trying to pass a counterfeit twenty dollar bill.
Hey! No body contacted ME. I’m feeling a bit left out. Jeeze – a grand conservative conspiracy and I get left out – I object!
/sarcasm
Poor Ms Mapes. It seems she is delusional and does need help. The help should be in the form of relatives keeping her away from keyboards so she ceases to make a fool of herself.
I enjoy seeing the their breakdown. In the early 90’s I had my first experience of watching a speech live and seeing the major news outlets coverage of it later – I couldn’t believe that they watched the same thing I did. In some cases it was 100% fabricated and totally opposite what the speaker had said.
For years I would point this out only to be told to shut up – *all* the news stations ran it and they know more than I do. Now, for things that are MUCH less blatant they are getting caught and those same people now say the same thing I do.
They are like any other dishonest person who has gotten away with it (indeed – had great success with it) finally getting caught. They know very well what they did and keep trying what has worked in the past, when that doesn’t work try more and more of it. This type of thing is so blatant it doesn’t even work well with the groups of crazies that believe in what they say and it just digs the hole deeper and deeper.
more vs. biggest
neo-neocon: thank you for the change. Has nothing to do with my wisdom, rather with my visualizing some poor young stud, educated in this feminized new world, frantically packing his codpiece with pingpong balls, forgetting how revealing the fabric is.
Another great post neo-neocon.
The projection of power is the most interesting part for me. CBS, Dan Rather, 60 Minutes, Mary Mapes had almost unlimited power. The President, government, blogosphere, Internet, VRWC combined couldn’t even scratch them.
Only one force could penetrate their armor and destroy them: themselves.
Ah, the “content.”
And there we have the fatal conceit. What Mary Mapes thought was a huge story wasn’t a story at all (Bush having a fairly relaxed requirement for Guard attendance… like *that* never happens) and was so fired up about bringing down Bush that she brought down herself instead.
I think it’s called karma, or something.
They were truly hoist with their own petard. Nice.
All this illustrates zombie’s theory that they’re brainwashed members of the leftist Hive Mind. Fanatical adherents to the political ‘religion’ of the Left.
Their reaction to being confronted with the truth and their own mendacity is psychologically identical to that of cult members confronted with the insanity of their theology or the criminality of their cult leaders–screaming and foaming at the mouth, like cornered animals. Like their very lives are at stake.
And we all know how hard it is to de-program a cult member.
Here’s a good quote on deprogramming:
Margaret T. Singer, Professor of Psychology at U.C. Berkeley and an expert in the field of cult mind control:
“I personally see entering the cult and the deprogramming as quite separate psychological phenomena. Getting into the cult consists of the cult recruiter getting the new initiate to stop the thought processes, to think only in cult terms and concepts, to stop thinking about their past and to give them a [narrow] frame of thought…
The deprogramming process is more a freeing up of the person to once again use their mind and to reflect and think and reason and to trust their own experiences.”
It’s heartwarming to know there’s still someone out there defending W and his obvious reluctance to address his less than stellar role in the military. Lord knows, I’m sure he needs all the help he can get these days, when even the military itself would not defend his leadership. Never mind. What could I be thinking? Let’s stay the course.
Jimmy, you are totally confused: this thread is NOT about Bush, it is about MSM pundits arrogance. Your reply has something to do with the topic at hand if only you subscribe to “fake but accurate” line of reasoning.
Persons with overblown ego can’t avoid making fools of themselves in public. Current culture of idolizing pundits makes this type of mental disorder an occupational hazard.
Pingback:Expert opinions…. at Amused Cynic
dear Sergey
You say this is not about Bush it is about the MSM. Can you read? I mean in the sense of looking at words and decoding them for what they say A comment from DC Gotham appeared in praise of George W. Bush at 3:46 yesterday. It apparently was referring to Bush’s brilliant military career, charming boyhood career as a drinker including his drunk driving arrest when he was a lad of 39, ah our foolish college days! And what is less hypocritical than signing Draconian Legislation after you have apparently stopped carousing in your 40’s?
There is a larger issue with this posting, which is that you will never read a Neo-Neo post critical of the media that she thinks represents her political views. No point in having a single standard. We Decide, You Report.
Here is the quote and this is why you, or DC Gotham, but not Jimmy is confused:
DCGOTHAM WRITES:
Newsrooms do not need diversity of race and gender so much as they need diversity of political understanding. Why did Dan Rather and Mary Mapes fall for the false Texas Air National Guard documents? Answer: because the documents confirmed their pre-existing bias about GWBush. Nothing is so wonderful as something which confirms one’s pre-existing bias. Not one person existed in the CBS’ newsroom to say:
“Hold on. GWBush has not led a life filled with hypocrisy. Maybe we should check into these documents a bit more.”
“Hold on. GWBush has not led a life filled with hypocrisy. Maybe we should check into these documents a bit more.”
???oh I get i! That is a good one.
Jimmy: Not sure what you could be thinking, since this thread is—as sergey rightly notes—about the arrogance of MSM pundits. Surely you’re not thinking that Mapes is correct in her emphasis on the content of forged documents?
As for defending Bush’s Guard service, an arguably decent case can be made, since I don’t believe the facts in the York article just linked have ever been convincingly contradicted—except, of course, by summary sound bites and forged documents. And Bush’s service was certainly better than Clinton’s—if we’re using that as a criteria for the Presidency, which I’m not (remember, I voted for Clinton—twice).
And that’s “Clinton” as in “Bill.” At least women such as Hillary are out of that loop.
It is helpful to bear in mind that the F-102 was one of several USAF aircraft to have the “widowmaker” tag applied.
Yeah, it’s really tough to defend yourself when someone can take the document, overlay it with the same stuff written on a computer and show that they match up exactly. It does not seem to occur to them that real experts DO blog on the internet. People devote themselve to little niche coverage of issues that interest them.
Considering how little time they spend covering things like Clinton fundraisers and the stolen gubernatorial election in Washington state, someone has to spend some time making these things known.
Bfflo tom: dear Sergey
You say this is not about Bush it is about the MSM. Can you read? I mean in the sense of looking at words and decoding them for what they say
Yeah, Sergey. I mean in the sense of looking at words and decoding their innershould have if only they weren’t written by lying, Bush-loving neocons! Decoding the truth, Sergey, the truth that is out there, no matter how fake the evidence it’s based on!! The truth that you just know in your heart is true, no matter what!!!
The documents? Sure, they were fake — everybody but you neocons knew they were fake before you did! So what? They’re still true, aren’t they??!
The MSM? Yeah, I guess you could say they’re biased — IF IT’S BIASED TO TELL THE TRUTH! The higher, inner TRUTH, about Bush who’s the Biggest Weenie Ever! The TRUTH they know in their heart is true, irregardless of factual details like forgeries, which we all knew were fake anyway, but didn’t care! And I’m not talking about Fox!!!
See, this is why you and neo-neo are so confused! If you don’t know the truth before you examine the evidence, you’re just opening yourself up to be led astray. You’ve got to commit to the truth first, and then you can “decode” any document, text, or fact — if you get what I mean.
Hehe.
Maybe it’s just safer to assume that any politician who came of age between 1964 and 1974 – whether he or she served in the military or not – is damaged goods.
I don’t think we’ll be safe again until the last of the “68ers” is dead and buried.
Bugs is right, and not just about politicians who are 68ers. A lot of 68ers are damaged goods, many having accepted communist agitprop and never shaken it off. If the WWII cohort was the “Greatest Generation,” then we arguably are the “Worst Generation,” the most narcissitic, self-absorbed, disloyal, and character-free bunch, and the nation will be better off when the entire cohort is dead and buried.
And I say that as a member of that cohort, of which I’m embarrassed to be a member.
I see my XHTML skills are none existent. There was supposed to be this quote at the start.
“if documents are forged, their content is irrelevant, except as an artifact of whoever did the forging, and to give us a clue as to whatever that person’s agenda might be.”
The most widely known forged document that still is the most popular reading, especially in Arab world, is, of course, “Protocols of Elders of Zion”. The history of this monumental forgery and of its debunking can be a plot of a thriller. But all this seems irrelevant to millions of those who see it as a BIG TRUTH, so such trivialities as its authenticity or lack thereof makes little difference.
If Mapes wishes to be a victim and martyr so much, like Putin’s victims that mysteriously launched themselves off a building a floor or two above their apartments, who are we to stand in their way, Neo?
tomj – argument must be so much easier when you present false choices and then answer them yourself.
Useless, but easier.
I am puzzled by the lack of reading skills. I made a limited point, that one of the commentators here said this was a discussion of the MSM, not Bush. I quoted an earlier commentators point that the CBS Newsroons should have had someone who said “GW Bush is not a hypocrite…”
That changed the discussion to Bush. Then Sally wrote a typical Blog Post proving nothing to nobody and
This led to a spirited defense of Bush, who was trained at great expense to be a Pilot and lost his certification, all while serving in the Texas Air National Guard including his missing months from the 1972 political season in Alabama.
Even this service was championed by the requisite Neo Groupie who, like her, voted the straight Democratic Ticket until 2001 when he abandoned every liberal belief and became certain that all the ills of the world came from Liberals.
The Assistant Village Idiot at least knows he is an idiot, but I find the “Let’s hear it for the good guys: Yeah! Let’s hear it for the bad guys: Boo!” depressing.
P.S. to Sally
Bush war record, as a young man and now, speaks for itself.
All young men should copy the life Bush lived.
The first 40 years are “young scamp time” where you fill those who know you with a sense that you are a rascal. Drunk Driving, losing your Air National Guard Pilot Certification, serving in Texas when there is a ground war going on, making the Air National Guard work for you by transferring to Alabama: all noble.
Hail Bush.
tomif, you’re using a typical leftwing tactic; you’re using insult, and sarcasm to try and shut Neo up, and stop a discussion you don’t want to hear; you think if you yell loud enough, and use snarkisms such as “Hail Bush”, Neo, and the rest of us, well stop saying all this stuff you don’t want to think about.
This isn’t going to work.
I just don’t understand why Mary didn’t see the devious but brilliant mind of Karl Rove behind this little caper. The documents came to CBS from Bill Burkett a long time Guard Officer who disliked Bush. He claims to have received them from a Lucy Ramirez. He never met Lucy, just talked to her on the phone. Apparently Lucy Ramirez is a fictitious name as no one has been able to locate her.
Phony documents purporting to show that Bush’s former CO was forced to give him satisfactory performance marks, which were not merited. These are passed to an enemy (burkett), who in turn passes them to Mapes and Rather, themselves eager to dig up dirt on Bush’s Air National Guard Service. Without determining authenticity they are rushed onto the TV news> The bait was so tantalizing they took it just as whoever set this sting in motion thought they would. Blogosphere shows that the documents are fakes. Rather and Mapes are revealed as shoddy, biased journalists.
Is this not the stuff of a well-planned sting operation? Does this not have the genius of Rove written all over it? I can just see him chuckling to himself over all the deep doo doo Rather and Mapes found themselves in.
Phony documents
PS to Bfflo Tommy: Forgeries are forgeries, fakes are fakes, prejudices are prejudices. You’re just gonna have to accept that. The documents were phonies, Mapes and Rather were done in by their own political biases and lusts, and simple-minded lefties like yourself were hung out to dry. Too bad so sad. Get over it, get over yourself, and get over Bush. Practice reading for a change, instead of “decoding”.
Jimmy, you became a perfect conspiracy theorist. Your BDS is now so serious that came further a simple compulsory-obsessive neurosis and morphed into paranoia. Consult your doctor.
And who needs sting operations now, when Move.On, Pallywood and other crazy Left generate faked news in such abundance that journalists can fill all front pages by them?
What defense do you make of Bush’s youth? What defense do you make of Bush’s record of service in the Air National Guard?
I am paraphrasing accurately and honestly here; your response is: “Isn’t the MSM terrible?”
Again, George W. Bush life speaks for itself. He spent the first 40 years drunk and irresponsible, as he himself admits.
And, again, nobody in America would advocate that young men “Live the way Bush did when he was your age.” There would be no troops anywhere.
Tom, you left out that Bush spent the first couple years of his life crapping himself when he wasn’t nuzzling the breasts of a woman he wasn’t married to, and he sponged off his family.
Is that the kind of man we want as President? I think not!
Occam
Good one. You cannot address Bush and his attitude toward serving his country, his arrest for drunk driving, or whether young people should live their lives the way Bush did, because you would have to say that for the first 40 years of his life, including his service in the Air National Guard, Bush was not a role model for anyone.
Tom, Beard,
In a thread about Rather, you would talk about Bush, even though he’s in the periphery of the topic. In a thread about Iraq, you would talk about Bush. In a thread about Social Security, you would talk about Bush.
That makes you awkward and boring.
tomj: Again, George W. Bush life speaks for itself.
Everybody’s life speaks for itself, even yours, Tommy J. But when political enemies feel that they need to forge documents in order to smear someone’s life, and when their allies in powerful media outlets aid and abet such lies, then reasonable people — as opposed to partisan fanatics — will draw the conclusion that such smears probably don’t speak for that life.
Which is why you’re here gnashing your teeth, isn’t it?
“obviously forged Killian memos”
“the fact that the memos were forgeries”
Fact? There were cries from angry Republicans in Congress for a formal investigation, but the Bush administration demurred. Why do you think the Bush administration never pursued an investigation?
The documents have never been proved “fraudulent,” even after a months-long multi-million dollar investigation led by a Bush administration-friendly panel.
By the way, do you deny that in 1972, George W. Bush dropped out of his National Guard service and later lied about it? Bush was AWOL from the National Guard 1972-1973
Do you dispute this?
Cincinnatus, fair point.
I was just pointing out that that was then, this is now. It wasn’t entirely off topic, since Rather’s thesis was that the ANG memos were fatal to Bush, whereas in fact, even if true, they were irrelevant (or certainly less relevant than, e.g., Clinton’s dodging the draft entirely, which was at best semi-relevant, and for the same reason: that was then, this is now).
Tom M: The documents have never been proved “fraudulent,”…
Funny to watch them squirm, isn’t it? Nobody with the slightest concern for their credibility tries to defend these “documents” any more, and that includes Mapes and Rather — but there’s Tommy 2, still trying to kick dust, blow smoke, wave his arms, change the subject, and hold his ears. It’s over, Tommy. You’re through.
Sally,
I am not squirming. It is fact that the documents have never been proven fraudulent. I would think a serious response would include a link to proof that they were proven to be fakes. You can’ t do that so you post nonsense.
And you ignored the main point: In 1972, George W. Bush dropped out of his National Guard service and later lied about it.
“In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test–the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there’s no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush’s story.”
“A spokesman for the Alabama National Guard estimates there were 600 to 700 members in the unit Bush was supposed to have served with in 1972. But none of these men has ever come forward to say he remembers Bush, and Bush has not named a single one of them.”
Why is it you guys ignore this?
Do you guys deny that?
dear Tom Murphy
You are intelligent so you probably don’t catch the great wit of Sally: see she called you Tommy! Just like she insists that we are squirming when they cannot come up with ANY defense of George W. Bush’s past.
They really are not very bright, which is why even if I experienced a so-called conversion that everything I believed to be true was up-ended on 9/11, I could never hang around these dolts.
They ignore your evidence of Bush sad dereliction if duty while professing to be in SUPPORT of the Viet Nam War because they live in a cocoon of lies and half truths.
And they make their own day by describing others in hysterical and demeaning terms and making asinine reductions like calling it the Democrat Party.
And then when Neo tells them Liberals are bad they crawl over themselves to top her. But they usually fail until Trismegestus shows up with a tone that sounds like he is the brightest guy in the Nut Ward.
In America, that is what we call discourse.
Tommy 2; just a point of clarification. Yes, the documents have been proven to be forgeries. They were written in a font (Times New Roman) which HAD NOT been invented in 1973. Unless you can tell me how a 1973 document can be written with a non existent font and why someone would use a $10,000 typesetting typewriter and also take 3+ hours to write a 2 paragraph memo, I consider the Case Closed!
That’s nothing. I hear Bush had a bunch of overdue library books back then, and even (I am revolted even having to say it) LEFT THE TOILET SEAT UP. Yes. And yet he walks among us. There is no justice!
You guys don’t get it. No one cares. Think of it the way you think of Kerry’s treason in stabbing the troops in the back by slurring them, when he either a) had firsthand knowledge of war crimes that he did not report (a serious dereliction of duty), or b) made up some crap for his personal aggandizement, and thereby gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
The way you consider that is kinda the way pro-American types consider Bush’s service or lack thereof. The difference is that Bush never ran on his military record, and only liberals give a rat’s ass about it. That’s the mistake Rather made; he thought it was a big story. To him, it was (true or not). To others, it wasn’t (true or not).
They were written in a font (Times New Roman) which HAD NOT been invented in 1973.
Tommy J: Okay, but have any of you dolts considered the possibility that time travel was involved? Thought not. See why you can’t prove the documents are fraudulent?
Oh, and while we’re on the subject, are you still denying that Bush was a poor role model for youth? Thought so. Just can’t handle the TRUTH, can you?
Tom Murphy,
When even the perpetrators of the deed cry ‘fake but accurate’, one hardly feels the need to prove it all over again. Since even those who put the documents forth say they are fake, if you want to argue otherwise the need for proof is on your shoulders.
Yes, tomjfrombfflo, everyone here with the notable exception of yourself and the one person in America still claiming these documents are not fraudulent are “not very bright” “dolts” who “live in a cocoon of lies and half truths” and spend their time “describing others in hysterical and demeaning terms”. We like making “asinine reductions” of issues and for the most part we don’t sound like “the brightest guy in the Nut Ward”.
I can see why you have a problem with the level of discourse here. Too bad we can’t all be more like you.
Tap
I made no claim whatsoever about the documents. I am referring to dolts and the brightest guy in the nuthouse from numerous visits to this site, where Neo says something bad about liberals and how evil they are and then the usual suspects rush in to say even worse things.
Go and look at her discovery that liberals cannot reason, which she then goes on to suggest means they are mentally ill, al a the Soviet Union’s definition.
You will see the comments try to top her in her contempt, especially Trismegestus, who can always be counted on to sound like a raving lunatic. He has his own which gets no traffic. Go figure, as the cliche runs.
Occam The distinction between Bush and Kerry is a false one. Kerry served in country and was shot at and put his life on the line; Bush kept a dissolute youth and then ran as a moralist. An earlier commentator asked why someone didn’t say, “George W. Bush was never a hypocrite…” That kind of writing is good enough for The Half Hour News Hour, except it is funny.
Although I agree with you the American people do not care about anything, not the war in Iraq, not history, not politics, we disagree on one huge issue. I believe their passivity is not a good thing. Our nation is dying spiritually and morally. We will be the first Civilization to “Amuse Ourselves To Death” as George Gilder, a great conservative writer warned in his 1980’s masterwork.
I would point out to Sally that I did not assert anything about the CBS Report. Bush is a hypocrite who believed in a war that he avoided. I wish I could travel in time, because I would love to see how history judges him. I think, however, that history will judge all of harshly because our country is silly and we are making it sillier.
Just one example. We have a War in Iraq, that is not only undeclared, like all our wars since WW2, but also is run like a television show. When we were winning it had great ratings. And now fans and people who want to see it pulled from television fight over it, while the apathetic majority play video games and do wahteverelse it is they do on the internet. I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with living or building a country we can all be proud to die for, live in, and celebrate.
tomj: I would point out to Sally that I did not assert anything about the CBS Report.
And I would point out to Tommy that the CBS report(s) was/were the topic of the post and the comment thread. Of course, as a common troll, he no doubt is unable to see beyond his pet obsessions, and will manage to “decode” any topic at all in order to “find” those obsessions. Compulsive projection of this sort is an unfortunate symptom of many in his condition, including, as neo points out, the benighted Mapes — but encouraging it by allowing the thread to be hijacked is a mistake, and won’t help its sufferers.
Tom, you neatly sidestepped my point. If Bush was a coward and a shirker, then Kerry is a traitor – straight up.
Tom 1 and Tom 2; I see that you have now called all members of the National Guard to be cowards. I bet that goes over well with them. There was no way that Bush knew that his unit would not be going to VN and by the way, training to fly an F102 took more courage and knowledge that skippering a boat in the streams of Viet Nam.
Occam
The man who fought is a traitor? I obviously disagree.
I think people throw the word “traitor” around too loosely.
Our nation is drowning in apathy, and in amusing ourselves, and the few who care on either side make charges like this all the time against each other.
I think you disgrace yourself by making the charge of Treason against John Kerry, or anyone who served their country. You don’t hurt Kerry, you hurt yourself by making that charge.
I did not neatly sidestep that point. Anyone who makes that charge is not worth talking to.
Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam. Then he had to get out for politics Higher priorities and what not. Three purple hearts in 4 months without medical evacuation, is politically beneficial.
Aside from the fact that Kerry is a narcissist, Kerry benefits by hurting others. That is just how it is. The belief that you hurt yourself by whatever, is a utopian belief system and a very short termed one at that. Maybe in the long term Kerry has hurt himself more than others, but it’s been pretty long so far and that hasn’t materialized.
Ever hear of Benedict Arnold?
God, listen to you guys! “well, he served better, na na na (sticking your tongue out)….no no no, my guy did! jheez!
How many of you, by the way, served? AND, saq action in Nam?
Laura, your son is a baby killer who routinely tortures prisoners, attaches electrodes to genitals, and rapes and kills innocent people in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.
Now vote for me for the US Senate.
Oh great Occam! If you are as old as you sound, you are about that age that SHOULD have served. Did you?
Laura, you’re making me rethink my support for the 19th amendment. Seriously.
Laura still ignorse the logic that you can’t have a standing army of huge size without wars to send them to. The draft era had WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. A win, a draw, and a loss. Which wars will Laura Americans into?
Without wars, “service” becomes a meat grinder, as occured in early WWII. Without the intent to acquire experience in wars, you should not play with parade armies.
Still no answer? Why avoid it? Yes or no.
Still don’t know why you don’t want to answer. Laura thinks that the wars we are fighting now and probably will engage in 5 years from now will require more than 1% of her country’s population.
– 25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees.
– Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in
Vietnam. Reservists killed: 5,977.
– National Guard: 6,140 served; 101 died.
– Total draftees (1965-73): 1,728,344.
– Actually served in Vietnam: 38%.
– Marine Corps draft: 42,633.
– Last man drafted: June 30, 1973.
– Vietnam Vets: 9.7% of their generation.
– 9.087.000 military personnel served on active duty during the
Vietnam era (Aug. 5, 1964-May 7, 1975).
– 8.744.000 Gls were on active duty during the war (Aug. 5,
1964-March 28, 1973).
– 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the
Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight
crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China
Sea waters). · 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders
of South Vietnam (Jan. 1, 1965 – March 28, 1973).
– Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and
1964.
– Of the 2.6 million, between 1-1.6 million (40-60%) either fought
in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly
regularly exposed to enemy attack.
– 7,484 women (6,250 or 83.5% were nurses) served in Vietnam.
– Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1969).
So, Laura, you envision another Cold War in which millions of Americans will be required to fill out conventional divisions and such?
The immediate observation is that even with such forces as you have listed, Vietnam was not won. So what is really important, numbers or quality?
No Yarmsakar
The question was, how many people ,dickering over who served better, Kerry or Bush, actually served themselves?
Simple question. Simple answer.
crickets?
Have you “served” yourself, Laura? When and where?
crickets?
“The question was, how many people ,dickering over who served better, Kerry or Bush, actually served themselves?
Simple question. Simple answer.”
Simply irrelevant.
How many people dickering over who was a better president, Reagan or Clinton, have actually served as president themselves? Your standard is a pointless standard, as I hope this example makes clear. (Although I know it won’t.)
That’s a typical way to shut down a discussion. If you stand there and shout at each other about WHO served better, and you don’t know anything about what that actually looks like personally, then you express only your opinion of who you like more or not. Saying things like, “training to fly an F102 took more courage and knowledge that skippering a boat in the streams of Viet Nam.”
Remember, I’m not quesitoning ANY OF THEIR RECORDS, you guys are. So, did you serve or not?
And Sally, since I’m not questioning any of their service, your attempt to shut my quesiton down doesn’t carry much weight.
My father was in Nam 66-69, took a voluntary second tour of duty so was gone for 3 years.
This is a heaven’s grace that 95% of population in advanced countries have more interest in sports than in politics. These 95% are by definition not very bright or very educated. When more than 20% of population became politically active, disaster is looming. What is more dangerous than a fool? A fool with a zeal. Of these 5% political activists huge majority are crazy (that is why, in the first place, they became activists).
This whole thread, Laura, began as discussion of Bush’s service record by CBS, specifically by Mapes and Rather. Have you questioned whether either Mapes or Rather served? Would it have been relevant even if you had? Do you think perhaps your question addressed to other commenters was itself an attempt to “shut down” a discussion? And do you think it might have been overly smug, in light of the apparent fact that you yourself have never “served” (you’re not your father, nor your son)?
If you want to say that criticizing the service records of politicians is not particularly relevant, that’s at least a respectable even if questionable position. But if you’re implying that only those who have served themselves can make such criticisms, that’s starting to sound a lot like the contemptible “chicken hawk” slur that’s so popular among the effete left.
Oh Sally, you really are stretching this just a bit aren’t you?
The only post I made on this thread was an observation at how childish you all sounded throwing, hurling, each one about like little children. So, in response to that Sally, I asked a very simple question. And, I guess the answer is No. So, that said, you all sound a little foolish with all your expert banter, leading me to ask the question. The answer apparently is “no, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!”
left? Please…
Laura: The only post I made on this thread was an observation at how childish you all sounded….
Kind of the point, Laura. You didn’t bother, for example, to observe how “childish”, not to say foolish, Mapes and Rather sounded in attempting to trash Bush’s service record, did you? Yet that was the topic of the post that initiated the thread.
Certainly people can sound foolish talking about things of which they have no experience or knowledge, and that includes you and me (in, for example, discussing foreign policy). But call them on their mistakes or ignorance, not on whether or not they’ve “served” in the State Department.
Yes Sally, indeed, they do sound childish (Mapes and Rather). The tit for tat banter regarding Kerry or Bush’s service illustrates that they (Mapes, Rather) are not the only ones who exemplify such foolishness.
The irony in all of this to me is that not one person throwing darts has stood up to say that they have been to war. Not one.
It’s not a critique, it’s an observation.
Ah, Laura,
It’s a little tiresome. You demanded the answer to your ‘observation’ 5 times in a row. You ‘observe’ that you want to know whether those speaking here have served in the armed forces, and yet I ‘observe’ that you don’t want to answer that question yourself.
Well, my husband served in Desert Storm and Shield. So there. I care about our armed forces. So there. My father served. So there. I think, according to your rules, this gives me more ‘authority’ than you, since a spouse is a closer relation, legally than a parent. So there.
Do we really need to play this game? Just because no one else is constantly spouting off their record or their relatives’ records in the armed forces doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Maybe you are just the only one here who feels that this sort of thing gives you some sort of moral authority that trumps what everyone else has to say.
I don’t know of any thread in which you have NOT tried to use this. It is tiresome. You are not unique in that you are related to service members. It is not necessary to use that fact to be heard here. We love to hear from you just the same. It’s great to have someone to debate these things with who doesn’t just throw incessant insults (tomjfrombfflo).
Please. Give it a rest already.
Hey, I know! We can go ahead and have a bidding war. You know. Establish just who it is around here that has the ultimate moral authority to speak on these matters. Then we can all just sit back and read what that person has to say. I’ll begin the bidding.
I’ll see your son and father, and raise you two cousins and a distant uncle. And I’ll go ahead and throw in Operation Care and Comfort as well as Operation First Response.
Thanks Tap. Recommendation taken.
ps: and with humor. Thanks for the post!
I’m glad, Laura. And I can understand that as a mother of a son at war how that would drive everything you do.
“The critics blathered on about everything but the content.”
I can see how the reporters would be upset that the entire story was squelched ultimately by this one questionable document. Obviously, one questionable document shouldn’t render the subject of Bush’s service record off limits for all time. It’s just one bit of evidence that didn’t pan out.
However, the reporters who constructed the story of irregularities in Bush’s service chose to make this questionable document one of that story’s cornerstones. It was the weak member that caused the entire structure to collapse. If they had taken the time to gather more valid evidence – or had admitted that they couldn’t find much valid evidence – they might have saved themselves some trouble.
Not sure they really deserved firing, but they at least deserved censure for writing and airing a bad story.