Dan Rather Coruption

[Robert]

ALERT: Reports are now exploding across newspapers,
television and the internet that CBS News, led by blatantly
biased Dan Rather, used forged documents during a "60
Minutes" segment Wednesday night in an incompetent attempt
to smear President George W. Bush's National Guard service.
Clearly phony, these "new" documents were easily debunked
overnight by solid evidence from forensic document experts,
typographers and retired military officers.

Closer examination quickly proved the supposedly 30-year-
old documents were generated in a modern-day typeface from
a printer, not a typewriter, negating CBS News' excuse
that the documents were aired because they passed
handwriting analysis.

Yet Dan Rather PUSHED to air the groundless smear in an
obvious attempt to counter President Bush's jump in the
polls. As evidence of fraud mounts, Rather and the network
have refused to name their source OR their expert who
supposedly "authenticated" the documents.

At BEST, Rather and the CBS News staff are guilty of gross
incompetence by allowing their desire to smear the President
outweigh their professional duty to properly check the facts.
At WORST, CBS News may be guilty of deliberately reporting
what they knew to be false, and engaging in libel and
slander against the President of the United States during
a time of war.

Americans nationwide need to DEMAND accountability from
the media -- and we've set up an easy way for you to do
just that.
 
TAKE ACTION:  You can click through below to use (or edit)
our online letter, demanding that CBS News release the
name(s) of its sources and air a retraction as the
documents are proved to be forgeries. Tell the network to
drop its blatant anti-Bush bias and stop trying to sway
the election with unethical and unprofessional "reporting."

Furthermore, IF anchor Dan Rather pushed this story because
of his bias, he deserves to be FIRED -- so you might even
want to ask CBS to dump him NOW and clean house, so that
CBS News can offer fair and balanced reporting worthy of
regaining public trust.

Let's go right to the TOP -- click below to contact CBS
CEO Leslie Moonves himself (a copy will also be sent
directly to CBS News):

http://www.rightmarch.com/091004a.htm

NOTE:  Be sure to forward this Alert to everyone you know
who's sick of seeing the leftist mainstream media attacking
President Bush with unfounded -- even forged -- allegations,
simply in order to defeat him in the election. Thank you!


------------------------------------------------------------

             http://www.ConservativeAlerts.com/
    4850 Golden Pkwy., Ste. B #325, Buford GA 30518-1712

[Mikey]

Robert:  commies and leftists never consider themselves accountable.  Two words that are not in their vocabulary are accountability and responsibility.  

However, I do believe it is more effective to publically embarrass them and have it work to your goal.  The senior G. Bush did just that one time when blather hisself walked off the stage for 7 minutes after getting whizzed at something.  

Face it, kerry is on the downslide here and the dumbocrats will do anything to prevent that - even lie and use forged documents publically.  That is the quality of the people who adavocate for that party.  Mikey.

[Loader 3009]

September 12, 2004

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

A few weeks ago, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe was on PBS' ''Newshour'' explaining why the hundreds of swift boat veterans' allegations against John Kerry's conduct in Vietnam was unworthy of his attention. "The standard of clear and convincing evidence," he said, talking to Swiftvet John O'Neill as if he were a backward fourth-grader, ''is what keeps this story in the tabloids -- because it does not meet basic standards.''

Last week, we got a good idea of what Thomas Oliphant's ''basic standards'' are. Dan Rather and the elderly gentlemen at ''60 Minutes'' were all atwitter because they'd come into possession of some hitherto undiscovered memos relating to whether George W. Bush failed to show up for his physical in the War of 1812. The media had been flogging this dead horse all spring, but these newly ''discovered'' memos had jump-started the old nag just enough to get him on his knees long enough for the media to flog him all over again.

Unfortunately for CBS, Dan Rather's hairdresser sucks up so much of the budget that there was nothing left for any fact-checking, so the ''60 Minutes'' crew rushed on air with a damning National Guard memo conveniently called ''CYA'' that Bush's commanding officer had written to himself 32 years ago. ''This was too hot not to push,'' one producer told the American Spectator. Hundreds of living Swiftvets who've signed affidavits and are prepared to testify on camera -- that's way too cold to push; we'd want to fact-check that one thoroughly, till, say, midway through John Kerry's second term. But a handful of memos by one dead guy slipped to us by a Kerry campaign operative -- that meets ''basic standards'' and we gotta get it out there right away.

The only problem was the memo. Amazingly, this guy at the Air National Guard base, Lt. Col. Killian, had the only typewriter in Texas in 1973 using a prototype version of the default letter writing program of Microsoft Word, complete with the tiny little superscript thingy that automatically changes July 4th to July 4th. To do that on most 1973 typewriters, you had to unscrew the keys, grab a hammer and give them a couple of thwacks to make the ''t'' and ''h'' squish up all tiny, and even think it looked a bit wonky. You'd think having such a unique typewriter Killian would have used a less easily traceable model for his devastating ''CYA'' memo. Also, he might have chosen a font other than Times New Roman, designed for the Times of London in the 1930s and not licensed to Microsoft by Rupert Murdoch (the Times' owner) until the 1980s.

Killian is no longer around to confirm his extraordinary Magic Typewriter, but his son denied the stuff was written by his dad, and his widow said her late husband never typed. So, on the one hand, we have hundreds of living veterans with chapter and verse on Kerry's fantasy Christmas in Cambodia, and, on the other hand, we have a guy who's been dead 20 years but is still capable of operating Windows XP. It took the savvy chappies at the Powerline Web site and Charles Johnson of ''Little Green Footballs'' about 20 minutes to spot the eerily 2004 look of the 1972 memo, and various Internet wallahs spent the rest of the day tracking down the country's leading typewriter identification experts.

Bombarded with accusations that CBS had fallen for an obvious hoax, Dan turned to his trusty Smith-Corona and bashed out a few e-mails: ''For the umpteenth time,'' he said angrily, ''this is the kind of sleaze I had to put up with when they scoffed at 'What's the frequency, Kenneth?' "

Are Dan Rather and ''60 Minutes'' a bunch of patsies suckered by the Kerry campaign? Not exactly. According to the American Spectator, ''The CBS producer said that some alarm bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story.''

Hey, why not? Who's gonna spot it? If CBS says it's so, that's good enough for Thomas Oliphant's Boston Globe, the New York Times and the Washington Post, all of whom rushed the story onto their front pages because it met their ''basic standards.'' On Friday morning, Paul Krugman, the New York Times' excitable economist, filed a column called, ''The Dishonesty Thing,'' and for one moment I thought he was about to upbraid CBS for rushing on air with their laughably fake memos. But no, he was droning on about how the National Guard story demonstrated George W. Bush's ''pattern of lies: his assertions that he fulfilled his obligations when he obviously didn't ..."

The tragedy for Rather, Oliphant, Krugman and Co. is that even if the memos were authentic nobody would care. Their boy Kerry had a crummy August not because he didn't hammer Bush for being AWOL in the Spanish-American War but because the senator's AWOL in the present war. Big Media are trashing their own reputations in service to a man who can never win.

After the 2002 election, I wrote, ''Remind me never to complain about 'liberal media bias' again. Right now, liberal media bias is conspiring to assist the Democrats to sleepwalk over the cliff.''

The media and the Democrats sustain each other's make-believe land. Dan Rather tells his staff, ''Kerry's told me there's nothing to this Swiftvet thing.'' Kerry tells his, ''Rather's assured me this Swiftvet story's going nowhere.''

George W. Bush ought to wake up every morning and thank the Lord the media aren't on his side.

Remember the Hitler Diaries? They turned up in the '80s. Only problem is they weren't by Hitler. But by then various prestige publications had paid a fortune to serialize them. Among them was the Sunday Times of London, owned by Murdoch, who wasn't happy. He called the editor, Frank Giles, into his office, and said, ''Frank, I'm promoting you to editor emeritus.''

''I've always wondered,'' murmured Frank, ''what 'editor emeritus' means.''

''The 'e-' means you've been given the elbow and the '-meritus' means you bloody deserve it,'' said Murdoch.

I have a feeling after November CBS News will be promoting Dan Rather to editor emeritus.

[Rogmatt]

Dan Rather has always hated the Bush family. Ever since Bush Sr. challenged him on live TV back in the late 80s or early 90s.
Rather is a piece of human debris.

[Loader 3009]

I am planning to skip "The Simpsons" tonight to watch "60 Minutes".  Maybe they will put their feet in their mouths a little deeper.  

The other networks are keeping their distance from this story out of "professional courtesy"........as much as they would like to pile on CBS.

I think it's hilarious. :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D

All this, on top of the death of the AWB,...........they don't know whether to sh*t or go blind.

[Mitch in MI]

I have a feeling after November CBS News will be promoting Dan Rather to editor emeritus.

I doubt it for two reasons.

1. If CBS cared about truth, they would have fired the entire staff of 60 Minutes about 30 years ago.
When it comes to deception and lies, CBS is worse than NBC, which is usually worse than ABC.

2. I would imagine Rather is a script reader, not a reporter.

[Loader 3009]

I remember Rather and Cronkite covering the 1968 Dimocrat convention.  Rather manufactured news even then.  He has always been a left-leaning activist.  He IS the senior news anchor at CBS and has almost unlimited power to make decisions concerning news subject and content even though he is in his seventies.  After forty years with CBS he is overdue for retirement and I will bet you a beer he will be gone come 2005.

[alsatian]

If I were Bush and the 60 minutes documents were fraudulent (and it sure looks like they are fraudulent to me, I'm just citing the obvious contingency), I would never field another question from a CBS journalist.  I would try to strong arm members of my administration to never again field a question from a CBS journalist.  I would grant no interviews to a CBS journalist.  They could sit out in the cold until hell froze over.  And if they cry and moan about this "injustice" I would cite their shoving these fraudulent documents down our throats without a very public correction on the record.

As far as the fraudulent documents.  I hold out -- temporarily -- the prospect that CBS can show that they are legitimate.  However, for me this requires them to give a clear believable account of how the anachronistic typographic features came to be in a 1971 document and how they obtained private files.  I'm not buying "our expert says they are good."  It isn't like asking someone to explain Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to the masses who are not equiped to grasp enough of the details to render a judgment on the theory.  Many of us who are old enough worked with typewriters in the early 1970s and also now work with modern word processors.  All of us have enough background for an explicit discussion of these typographic anomalies.  So far I have not heard one single point addressed on these matters.  I have heard that one of the corroborating speakers has since backed away and disavowed support of the truth of those documents -- a general somebody who had been denied access to some critical information before rendering his opinion.