BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:14 AM

"The answer is more than one but you will find fault with that answer regardless, that is your mission, to find fault."

Absolutely. Just as it is your mission to troll. Notice you answer no questions from others? Notice that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 11:48 AM

If you read my 11:00 post you will see I amswerd RD and bobert so what are you babbling about.

Plese take a moment and present some facts to support your opinions. Sarcasm, namecalling and personal quips prove nothing ecxept to fill up space where facts are absent.

Let's get back to the Rasmussen polls. Do you still believe a leftist website "vote" is the equivalent nationwide poll?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:19 PM

But he did conduct such a campaign. Over and over again he and his "talking point" marionettes asserted or implied that Saddam Hussein was "the same as" the sources of terrorism, and the effect of that campaign was that over 50% of our brilliant citizens believed that Saddam was behind 9-11. Do you REALLY need one of your minders to go drag out the quotes that have been posted lo, these many times?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM

Bush's daddy found no problem actually getting an opportunity to fight.   The vast majority of the Bush's fellow piloting students went to Vietnam and fought. These are facts.

Bush was actually teased about the fact at the time that he was not going to Vietnam.

Kerry fought.
Bush did not.

These are facts.


Let's see some facts to deny them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 05:35 PM

So, OG, you are then going to start being polite with me? I will return politeness--but please understand that I will return sarcasm ten-fold, and I do know how to hate. Your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 07:35 PM

Yo, Old Guy,

Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???

Seesm to me that wasn't the issue of the documents but that they could not be substantiated... Big difference, pal...

And while we are on the subject, had the US wanted to call up Bush duruing his AWOL all I can say is good luck... Hard to call up the missing...

As for Kerry, can you provide any evidence that he didn't turn the boat around and save one of his men??? No, seems that the those Swift Boater for Bush weren't there... Yeah, they might have been in Nam and prolly were but they weren't there when Kerry either turned the boat around or didn't... Or when he took his boat onto shore and killed a Viet Cong, or didn't...

Do you have any criduible sources that would hold up in any court of law???

No, you don't..

What you have is a bunch of partisan Bushite Vietnam vets who did a nice hatchet job on a man who may have actually shown more valor than all of them put together???

Hey, Old Guy, I will say one thing and that is that the Bush propaganda machine has worked just like it was drawn up when it comes to you...

Try independent thought... It don't hurt at all...

I ain't no partisan here, pal, but you sure as heck are...

What you don't see, or care to see, is that Bush and his boys are Hell-bent on bending over to corporate interests... Hitler, BTW, also courted the industrialists... No, I'm not callin' Bush Hitler but he has certainly taken some pages out of Hitler's play book...

It was Hitler who remarked that the masses would believe the "Big Lie" and when it comes to the "Big Lie" there's been no one in my life time that was in the same class with Bush... Hey, he's got ice-water running in his viens when it comes to telling lies...

Like I said, I ain't no partisan... Kerry, I agree wasn't too hot... Clinton outright sucked... Gore was a bore... Hillary is about as bad as her hubby...

But now yer God, Bush, he's the worst of 'um all... And not only is he a liar but he is a thief... He's trying to bleed the middle class and poor to death...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 07:52 PM

I suspect that once you have signed up to support the debble, you gotta forward all his PR. It comes with the package; it's in the very fine print. No-one ever reads it, but they gotta do it anyhow.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:53 AM

Amos:

You haven't produced any quotes and no stats to support your assertions. Go and check out your source, the Onion where they post lies and call it Satire.

Then left wing ninnies get sucked in (Yeah, this is what I want to hear about the evil right wing), seize on to the data and proclaim it to be truth.

http://www.theonion.com/content/faq/editorial
"The Onion is a satirical weekly publication published 52 times a year on Thursdays."

An example of an Amos truthful news source:
"WASHINGTON, DC—The recent leak revealing Santa Claus to be "your mommy and daddy" has been linked to President Bush's senior political adviser and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. "If this devastating leak, which severely..."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 07:51 AM

Old Guy--

Sorry you had nothing better to to with your time at 1:53 AM 1 Jan 2006 (EST) than to make absurd charges, while somehow not finding a way to contradict the facts that Kerry fought in Vietnam; Bush never found the time to do so.

Hope your hangover isn't too severe.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 07:54 AM

And of course, yet again none of the Bush regime's apologists have yet even attempted to explain why the quote that opened this thread is not propaganda linking Saddam and 11 Sept 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:06 PM

RD:

Thousands of words later you have yet to explain why it is.

To me, not being a left wing nut extremist, like the majority of US citizens, the qoute means that the occurrence of 9/11 caused some who previously believed that Saddam could be contained to think that he could not be contained.

Explain to me why you are not an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:11 PM

I am sick and tired of the biased media reporting and constant Bush bashing that goes on on this forum. Not all the news is bad from Iraq
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/19/ixworld.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:24 PM

OG--

Did the quote link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 or not? Simple question--simple answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:39 PM

To RD that does not answer questions from others, demands answers from others and then ignores others when they answer:

No, the quote does not link Saddam and 9/11 in any way shape or form.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:32 PM

Use your head, Old Guy --(for once, unless of course it's too much of a strain). It puts Saddam and 11 Sept in the same sentence (and does not sever the link)--and why do you think that was done--total coincidence?

Do you need chapter and verse from Goebbels to see the similarity?

What about that trip to the library you and Teribus were going to make?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:12 PM

THe Los Angeles Times argues in this article that civil war is already a fact of life in Iraq, but that it is distributed, high-quantity but low in the traditional scale of sizes of armies, often guerilla-driven.

But, they say, civil war it is, and it has been ongoing since the fall of Saddam.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:35 PM

Yeah, Amos, Knight Ritter reported this past week that the Kurds within the Iraqi Army are ready to turn on the no-Kurd folks in their ranks, kill them, and take oil-rich Kirkuk...

Yes, the civil war that many of us predicted would occur way back during the Bush mad-dash-to-war seems to be materializing...

Now if we could predict this consequence it's shamefull that Bush's folks couldn't see it... But then again, back then (as now) they only hear their own small little voices and no one elses...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 08:52 PM

"Before Sept the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained."

It breaks my heart that you don't like the quote, Old Guy--particularly fascinating --(30 Dec 2005 11:00 PM)-- that you disagree with "many in the world"--don't think that phrase is justified.

Sorry--you'll have to work that out with your mighty leader, Mr. Bush--he's the stellar thinker who said it.

Congratulations---you and Mr. Bush are in a circular firing squad.

Maybe you'll actually start to read a post before you shoot from the lip. That would be refreshing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 10:11 PM

I love the quote because it proves that GWB was not trying to connect Saddam and 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: TIA
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 11:20 PM

"I love the quote because it proves that GWB was not trying to connect Saddam and 9/11."

HUH?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:43 AM

Ignore OG. He's crazier than a shithouse rat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:51 AM

'"The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere." —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005'

God Almighty, that man has a way with words, doesn't he, OG?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:54 AM

No rats in my shithouse. I don't even have a shithouse.

I have an rat free indoor toilet.

If you guys really want to convince the weakminded, write a Bush propaganda song, A rap song would work good.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: number 6
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:01 AM

I heard he doesn't like rap ... now if you did in a Texas Swing kind of thang ... he might listen.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:13 AM

Home, home and deranged,
Where the President thinks in his dreams,
Where seldom is heard
A discouraging word,
For we can't figure out what he means.

'"We need to apply 21st-century information technology to the health care field. We need to have our medical records put on the I.T." —George W. Bush, Collinsville, Ill., Jan. 5, 2005'

Home, home and deranged,
Where the President thinks thoughts all night,
Where seldom is heard
An informative word
For his head's in a place with no light.

'"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." —George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005'

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:08 AM

Yes, Peace, that is a bit confusing.

Maybe one of the Bush apologists can translate that for us.

Of course, they see no need to explain it because they believe that daddy knows best and all they have to do is believe in him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 04:24 AM

<>

Ron Davies would like his question detailed above answered.

The actual quote is as follows:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

IMAGINE (referring to something that may happen in the future) those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, THIS TIME (referring to something that may happen in the future) armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Now what on earth, having read the State of Union Addresses of 2002 and 2003, possesses Ron Davies (Republican) to isolate one sentence from the 2003 speech and then proclaim to the world as "Fact" that for the previous there had been a concentrated propaganda campaign to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September 2001. In another thread Ron identified this "campaign" as running from mid-summer 2002 to March 2003 - so where are the quotes launching this campaign from mid-summer 2002. I would have thought that Ron would have used at least one instead of a single sentence from a rather long speech given towards the end of Ron's randomly selected period.

In answer to his very poorly and improperly framed question. No Ron it does not represent propaganda.

What it does do is mark a watershed after which attitudes are perceived as having to change to meet the requirements of the threat to the nation as evaluated and assessed by the House Security Committee.

What it says is perfectly in accord with the US Government's stated approach to international terrorist threat as outlined in the State of the Union Address of 2002.

One thing is certain Ron - It was not the propaganda campaign that would appear to be the child of your imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 05:12 AM

Ron Davies 31 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM

"Bush's daddy found no problem actually getting an opportunity to fight.   The vast majority of the Bush's fellow piloting students went to Vietnam and fought. These are facts."

So the above are "facts" are they Ron? Can you verify or substantiate them? I asked you to do so before and you declined.

Now the, "...vast majority of the Bush's fellow piloting students went to Vietnam and fought." Just what do you define as "fellow piloting students":

- All personnel USAF; NAG; Army; Marines; US Navy learning to fly at the same time?
- Initial flight training class within the Texas NAG?
- His fellow students at the time he and Fred Buckley made inquiries, i.e. during OTU?

Your post seems to indicate the latter as you go on to mention teasing with regard to the request, but if investigated you will rapidly determine that for each category described above, the vast majority DID NOT go and fight in Vietnam. The "vast majority" went nowhere near Vietnam, the "vast majority" were busily engaged elsewhere.

Numbers involved in Vietnam peaked during the years 1966 to 1970, highest number being in 1968 (536,100) now (to use Ron's terminology) the "vast majority" of those would be made up of infantry and logistics units, the percentage of that half million that were pilots would be fairly small. Sorry Ron at the height of the "Cold War" the vast majority of the armed forces of the United States of America, let alone the pilots serving in the armed forces of the United States of America, were otherwise engaged. In writing his post I don't think that Ron checked the number of people serving in the US Armed Forces, of course he would have to to establish his vast majority claim, he didn't though, as half a million is nowhere near a "vast majority" compared to the three and a half million serving at that time.

But of course if Ron is correct he could provide the numbers of George W Bush's fellow students who went on to serve in Vietnam. One thing is for certain, they wouldn't be flying F-102A's (aircraft type was being/had been withdrawn from theatre). Another certainty is that that they wouldn't be there under the *Palace Guard* Scheme (that was already being wrapped up).

Oh yes!! Ron's source is the one referring to "piloting students" who previously mentioned them going to "piloting classes". OK fellow Mudcatters who have had any connection whatsoever to flying, or exposure to flying in the military - A question - Have you EVER heard such terminology for basic flight training or flight school? With regard to military aviation anyone referring to flight students and flight school as "piloting students" and "piloting classes" plainly hasn't got the foggiest notion of what they are talking about.

Utter drivel Ron, exactly as is your claim regarding "The propaganda campaign" That Never Was.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 09:54 AM

Teribus???

Hmmmmmmm, catchin' a little overtime pay to cover them Christmas expenses...

Word on the street was that you'd been reassigned...

Yeah, with all the money going to Bushite blog sites that has been reported in recent days and Bush's push to conrtol the news, I figgured that you were too important to the overall Bushite effort for Bush to ask you to do so much work at a folk music web site...

Go figure???

Ahhhh, do you all get paid by the number of words you write???

Just curious...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 10:03 AM

In a speech today President Bush said contrary to reports, he has no plans to attack Iran. The president said 'That's ridiculous. We didn't even have plans when we attacked Iraq.

The president submitted his annual budget -- $2.5 trillion. Don't kid yourself with this George W. Bush. This guy is sneaky, this guy is cunning, this guy is shrewd. He budgeted the upcoming invasion into Iran under office supplies.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 11:30 AM

Like O'Reilly, RD is only interested in hearing the answer he wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 11:35 PM

Teribus and other giant intellects of his sort--

""Before Sept 11th , many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained". Just total coincidence that Sept 11 and Saddam are mentioned in that context?

Yet again, how naive are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 01:11 AM

I think that Guest Old Guy is correct in his statement, "...RD is only interested in hearing the answer he wants."

Your question has been answered RD, and those answering it have given reasons for believing as they do. You on the other hand have merely stated your opinion without offering anything to substantiate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 01:16 AM

Well Bobert (02 Jan 06 - 09:54 AM) just goes to prove how much you can rely on your "Word on the street" crap ..... Doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 01:46 PM

current campaign:

There will be total victory
(unless the American defeatists against the war undermine us by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.)
Those who leaked any of the so called crimes we have committed, while protecting America, are traitors and are guilty of TREASON!

nothin like a another witch hunt to counter a witch hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:17 PM

Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat discussed the Saddam / Al-qaeda connections in an appearance last week on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Said Lieberman: "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:11 AM

Teribus et al.--

"Before Sept 11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained"

As Carol put it earlier: "What happened on 9-11 that would cause many in the world to change their belief that Saddam Hussein could be contained?"

A fascinating question indeed--good luck answering it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:51 AM

Bobert:

Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???

It was shown by several different people that the different size fonts Like the tiny elevated th after 187th) couldn't have been produced by the typewriters of the day without changing type balls which would have messed up the vertical alignment. Even if they could have done that, the horizonal spacing could not have been done on typewriters of the day. There were no Laser printers at that time, maybe dot matrix which is easily recognized.

It was done on a laser printer with a word processor with kerning. Someone should demand a Senate investigation tho prove if it is legit or forged and who forged it but Valerie Plamegate is more important because it might damage the president and National Guardgate would only damage Democrats.

        

9/9/2004: Bush Guard Documents: Forged

I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft's Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date "18 August 1973," then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.

And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as "authentic."

The spacing is not just similar—it is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word's defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the "th" in "187th" is slightly lower) is probably due to a slight difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font, or it could be an artifact of whatever process was used to artificially "age" the document. (Update: I printed the document and the "th" matches perfectly in the printed version. It's a difference between screen and printer fonts.)

There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.



Kerry Supporter: 99% Sure it's a hoax

The experts are weighing in, and it doesn't look good for the documents. The Weekly Standard's Steve Hays did a little more research and discussed the documents with several forensic examiners. Here's what they have to say:

    And according to several forensic document experts contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say the Killian memos appear to be forgeries. Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals, several irregularities in the Killian memos suggest that CBS may have been the victim of a hoax.

    "These sure look like forgeries," says William Flynn, a forensic document expert widely considered the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents. Flynn looked at copies of the documents posted on the CBS News website (here, here, here, and here). Flynn says, "I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not
have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written.

    Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."

And later:

    So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."


CBS admits memo fraud:


CBS News acknowledged for the first time yesterday that retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a disgruntled former guardsman, was its source for the four memos, and the network accused him of victimizing it by lying to producer Mary Mapes.
On the newscast, Mr. Rather introduced a brief clip of a testy interview he conducted with the retired lieutenant colonel in Texas this weekend.
In the interview, Col. Burkett admits that he lied to CBS when he said the documents had come from a former guardsman.
"I simply threw out a name that was basically I guess to take a little pressure off for a moment" as the CBS producer pressed for the name of the source, Col. Burkett told Mr. Rather.
Col. Burkett later provided a second name as the source, but CBS says it has been unable to verify the source's connection to the Guard.
On Sept. 10, when Mr. Rather was asked whether an internal probe was needed, he said it was "not even discussed, nor should it be." Yesterday, CBS said a soon-to-be-named panel would conduct an "independent review" to "help determine what actions need to be taken."
Col. Burkett has waged a long campaign to discredit Mr. Bush's military service. A CBS statement last week said it got the memos from "unimpeachable sources."
Col. Burkett, who has connections to Texas Democrats, has retracted some of his past accusations. Witnesses have failed to support his other accusations.
Journalistic ethics require reporters to conceal the identities of confidential sources, unless the source deliberately provides wrong information or agrees to be named.
Republicans, who last week called for an investigation into whether Mr. Rather was trying to influence the presidential election with fake documents, kept up the pressure yesterday.
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said the CBS investigation should probe whether the documents came out of a Burkett-Democratic Party conspiracy. The Democratic National Committee has begun broadcasting an ad, "Fortunate Son," that attacks Mr. Bush's Guard duty.
The Associated Press reported during the weekend that Col. Burkett communicated with Kerry advisers before CBS aired the memos.
"CBS has now answered questions about the authenticity of the documents but questions remain surrounding who created the documents, who provided them to CBS, and if Senator Kerry's supporters, party committee or campaign played any role," Mr. Gillespie said.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who has suggested that White House political adviser Karl Rove floated the fake memos, responded by unleashing another attack on Mr. Bush.
"We know that George Bush was a fortunate son, a child of privilege, who refuses to admit that he used his connections to avoid fulfilling his requirements," Mr. McAuliffe said. "But what we still don't know is why Bush didn't fulfill his duty to his country or why he has continued to lie to the American people about it."
CBS News President Andrew Heyward, in a personal statement, said the four memos should never have been used.
"Based on what we know," Mr. Heyward said, "CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
Mr. Rather, who conservatives say is consistently biased against Republicans, also offered an apology. He said:
"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers."
"If I knew then what I know now," he said, "I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
"But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. 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."
"Memogate," as some have dubbed it, will surely rank high in the pantheon of journalistic scandals, up there with Janet Cooke's bogus Pulitzer-Prize-winning story at The Washington Post, and fictitious reporting by Jayson Blair at the New York Times and Jack Kelley at USA Today.
All three newspapers did internal probes and admitted mistakes.
Mr. Rather disclosed the four memos on prime time Sept. 8 as a major exclusive. But within hours, bloggers and document analysts crowded the Internet with accusations that the memos were created by computer software not available in the early 1970s.
In the following days, recognized forensic document experts were nearly unanimous in telling the press that the memos were forged because they likely were typed on Microsoft Word software.
In addition, the signature of Col. Killian, who died in 1984 of a heart attack, did not appear to match known samples of his memos.
Attention then shifted to how CBS News veterans such as Mr. Rather could have aired such suspect papers and who could have provided them.
Suspicion centered on Col. Burkett, who has called Mr. Bush "Hitler." He has told stories — still unproven — of attempts inside the Guard to cleanse Mr. Bush's records of supposedly incriminating documents in the late 1990s when he worked at state headquarters.
In one account, Col. Burkett said he saw Mr. Bush's personnel file in a trash can near a museum on the grounds of Guard headquarters in Austin. But the friend he named to corroborate the story said he had no memory of such an incident.
Col. Burkett also retracted an accusation that the Guard retaliated against him for criticizing Mr. Bush's Guard service.
The CBS independent investigation likely will examine why "60 Minutes" relied on a critic such as Col. Burkett for the documents, and apparently ignored some of its own hired document experts, who expressed doubts before the broadcast.
His lawyer, David Van Os, released a statement last week attacking the Bush White House and reporters for focusing on whether the memos were legitimate.
The CBS statement yesterday cast the network as being victimized by Col. Burkett.
Col. Burkett "also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source," the statement said.
"Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point," the network said.
CBS also was feeling political pressure. Thirty-nine Republican members of Congress sent a letter to Mr. Heyward calling for an investigation.
Mr. Bush weighed in during the weekend.
"There are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered," Mr. Bush said in New Hampshire. "I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out."
Press reports on Mr. Bush's National Guard service have surfaced nearly every time he runs for office.
The Yale graduate enlisted in the Texas Guard in May 1968 and successfully completed flight training in the demanding F-102 interceptor. In 1972, he sought to leave flight status and move to Alabama to work on a senatorial campaign. He received an honorable discharge in 1973 and enrolled in Harvard Business School.
Democrats say Mr. Bush was "AWOL" by missing drills during that 1972-73 span. The White House says he arranged with Col. Killian to go off flight status and made up missed drills to earn enough credits for an honorable discharge.
The CBS memos further inflamed the Democratic accusations. According to the documents, Col. Killian ordered Mr. Bush to take a flight physical and Mr. Bush refused. A memo also discussed pressure from higher-ups to "sugarcoat" his performance evaluations.
As the "60 Minutes" documents crumbled under the weight of evidence, Mr. Rather changed course. He subsequently interviewed a former Guard secretary, 86-year-old Marian Carr Knox. An admitted Bush critic who calls him "unfit" to be president, Mrs. Knox said she believed the memos are fake, but contended that some of their contents were true.
But Mr. Bush's flying mates and Col. Killian's son, rebutted that accusation. They said pilots were never ordered to get physicals and that Mr. Bush was well respected by fellow pilots.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:56 AM

Woody - Can you please condense the above so maybe I can read it?

Either that or answer the question,

"What happened on 9-11 that would cause many in the world to change their belief that Saddam Hussein could be contained?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 02:23 AM

Are you having to change the wording of your 'selected' sentence to make your point Ron? Why not just provide, as I have done, the entire passage and let people make their own minds up.

CarolC's question was answered in the post of 02 Jan 06 - 04:24 AM. The statement made by the President in the 2003 State of the Union Address clearly indicated that after having suffered a partialy successful, anonymous, a-symetric attack on the 11th September, 2001 that marked:

"..... a watershed after which attitudes are perceived as having to change to meet the requirements of the threat to the nation as evaluated and assessed by the House Security Committee.

What it says is perfectly in accord with the US Government's stated approach to international terrorist threat as outlined in the State of the Union Address of 2002."

No propaganda campaign Ron, no matter how much you insist on it, that particular dog won't hunt, because what you contend flies in the face of reason, logic and fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 08:52 AM

Yo, Woody,

Of course I can't produce an waterproof evidence that the documents that Dan Rather used were not forged but that isn't really at issue here...

What is at issue is that Bush can't pove they were...

What occured with the CBS was a bull-rush by Karl Rove to protect Bush... Hey, it worked and was probably the only thing that would have worked to save Bush the embarassment of having to come out and flat admit thzt he was AW#OL... Especially at a time when he was asking American kids to die in Iraq-mire...

So, I ask you, Woodster, do you have waterproff evidence the documents were forged???

In yout own words please... Long ambiguos cut 'n posts are mot all that convincing...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 09:27 AM

The facts which those documents represented, however, were not bogus; those who were in charge of the Guard unit at the time said as much during the investigation into Memo Gate.

I would also point out that the WHite House under Bush has hardly ever investigated its own errors and owned up to them. The nation swooned when Bush even acknowledged that no WMD had been found and that that intell had been false.


A little perspective here. (1) a professional and respected news anchor gets misled by false documents, and acts on it based on false representations. When the lie is discovered he apologizes publically for his wrong doing. Cost: public embarassment for his network, embarassment for the Administration, perhaps a couple of hundred thousand dollars wasted.

(2) A standing president gets false information about Iraq's weapons programs. At the same time he also gets the correct data from others. He acts on the negative data, changing the emphasis multiple times for the reason for doing so. After years of people pointing out the obvious error in his thinking, he finally acknowledges the data was wrong, but insists on the rightness of the decision anyway. Cost: between two and three thousand U.S. lives, thousands of scarred and wounded veterans, tens of thousands of lives lost among residents of Iraq, loss of repute internationally, billions of dollars wasted.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 11:16 AM

CIA had plenty of evidence Iraq had no illegal weapons, book reveals
By Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent in New York, Sydney Morning Herald; January 5, 2006

THE CIA had evidence from 30 Iraqi weapons scientists that Saddam Hussein had abandoned its weapons of mass destruction programs long before the US invaded, an explosive new book on America's spying operations says. James Risen, national security writer for The New York Times, also says that in 2004 a CIA officer mistakenly sent one of its Iranian agents data that could be used to identify virtually the entire spy network in Iran...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 12:48 PM

What kind of evidence would convince Bobert?

Be specific.

The document in question makes an accusation. Does it have to be proven true or proven untrue?

If it has to be proven untrue that means Bush is guilty of the charges made in the document with out proof that they are legit.

It if has to be proven true that means Bush is innocent of the charges made in the document unless there is proof that they are legit.

Are people innocent until proven guilty or are people guilty until proven innocent?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:03 PM

Dianavan will have to read through the information to from her conclusion.

4 events happened on 9/11 that caused the US government to declare war on terrorisim. Saddam supported terrorisim so he is part of the war on terrorisim. One immediate evidence of this is he paid $250,000 dollars to the familys of suicide bombers. He supported terrorisim in many other ways including having terrorist training camps in Iraq. Not specifically Al Qaeda camps but camps for anybody that want to kill Americans and Jews.

No one has claimed that he had anything to do with the execution of 9/11

I am not going to engage in hours of digging up information to be disputed by diehard Bush haters. The information is there for people that want to keep an open mind while they read all of the information on the subject before they make a personal judgement. However if they have already made up their mind and refuse to read or give any credit to any thing that would be counter to their made up mind, they will always come to the same conlusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:49 PM

Quoting myself from a thread back in March...

"Amidst all the righteous indignation about "falsified" or "forged" or "fake" memos, Bush supporters always, always, always forget Marian Carr Knox. She's the one who typed the real memos. And, she says that "those aren't the memos I typed", but "their CONTENT IS ACCURATE"! So, ultimately, Dan Rather was driven out for reporting the truth."

Link to her interview is back there somewhere too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:55 PM

No one has claimed that he had anything to do with the execution of 9/11


Funny, isn't it, that as a result of the Presidential briefings to the nation, 40% of the public thought he did? I just can't imagine where they all got that stupid idea, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 02:07 PM

It asays here the documents are forgeries. Dates are wrong. Terminology is wrong. What happened to the original?

Why would it have to be recreated if the original exists?

Where is the Seante Investigation?

If the original does not exist it does not exist how do we know the recreated one is exactly like the original?


TEXAS GUARD SECRETARY SURFACES: SAYS CBS DOCS 'FORGERIES', BUT STANDS BY ACCUSATIONS AGAINST BUSH

The DRUDGE REPORT has found Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's former secretary who claims that the Texas Air National Guard documents offered by CBS in its 60 MINUTES II report filed by Dan Rather last week are indeed 'forgeries'.

"I did not type these particular memos. I typed memos like these," Knox told the DRUDGE REPORT from her home in Houston.

"I typed memos that had this information in them, but I did not type these memos. There are terms in these memos that are not Guard terms but that are Army terms. They use the word 'Billets'. I think they were using that to refer to the slot. That would be a non-flying slot the way we would use it. And the style... they are sloppy looking."

But Marian Carr Knox stands by the accusations contained in the allegedly fraudulent documents that Bush skirted a medical and flight exam without suffering institutional repercussions.

"The information in these memos is correct -- like Killian's dealing with the problems."

"It was General Staudt, not then Lt. Colonel Hodges [who succeeded Staudt], that was putting on the pressure to whitewash Bush. For instance he didnt take his flight examination or his physical. And the pilots had to take them by their birthdays. Once in a while there would be a reason why a pilot would miss these things because some of them were commercial pilots. But they had to make arrangements to take their exams."

Knox speculated as to how she thought the forgeries were created saying, "My guess is that someone in the outfit got hold of the real ones and discussed it with a former Army person."

Knox worked for the Guard from 1957 until she retired in 1979, and she was Lt. Col. Killian's secretary during the time President Bush served in Texas.

Contacted by the DRUDGE REPORT, Lt. Col. Killian's son Gary, who also served in the unit during the same period, responded: "I know Marian Carr. I remember her as a sweet lady who reminded me then of a dear aunt."

"But if Staudt had put pressure on my dad, there would have been a blow-up -- instantly. It was one of the reasons they got along so well. They had a mutual respect for one another."

"As has been pointed out by so many others, then Col Staudt had been out of the unit for 18 months. And I stand by my previous comments regarding my dad's admiration for Lt. Bush and his regard for him as an officer and pilot -- which was exemplary."

Knox told the DRUDGE REPORT that she did not vote for Bush in 2000 because he is 'unqualified' for the job, and does not intend to vote for him in 2004, either.

"Bush was not the only person of privilege who had a spot in the Guard. Senator [Lloyd] Bensen's nephew was in headquarters. There was a big jewelery store, Gordons. Their son was in the Guard. The owner of Batelstein's, a posh department store in the area, his son was in. The other kids couldn't get in like that. Hugh Roy Cullen's grandson was also in. He was a big oil man."

Knox, however, did have some kind words about then Lt. Bush.

"[Bush] was always pleasant and gentlemanly to me," she said. "I never noticed him not being respectful. I thought he was a nice young man and that he must have had very nice parents to produce a son as nice as he seemed to be."

Knox has been following the story since last week when the 60 MINUTES II broadcast aired, and on Friday she contacted the HOUSTON CHRONICLE wanting to tell her side of the story. Since then the DALLAS MORNING NEWS has also contacted her.

"What really hecked me off was when it was somebody on TV, associated with the White House, who said that all of this information was lies. And I got excited at the time because I knew that I had typed documents with this information because a person like Bush stood out from the others -- because of his association with his father."

Asked about reports that Lt. Col. Killian's wife and son saying he didn't type, Knox stated, "He didn't need to. He had me."

Knox explains that the August 18, 1973 date typed on one of the "forged" documents proves that they were faked. Group Commander Staudt, who allegedly had been putting pressure on Killian, retired in 1972.

To the best of her recollection, Knox explains that Staudt must have put pressure on Killian in 1972 -- the year he retired.

"If my father was going to type a CYA memo, which he didn't," Gary Killian responded. "He would have typed it himself because he wouldn't have wanted anyone to see it. But it's academic because Colonel Staudt had been out of the unit for 18 months -- as is well documented."

Contacted at his office in Bartlett, Texas, former Major Dean Roome, who served with Lt. Bush, responded to the latest information.

"If the memos are fraudulent, then why were they generated? Roome asked.

"Marian Carr Knox is validating what the rest of us are saying. She says once in a while a pilot would miss a physical because some of them were commercial pilots. I was also a commercial pilot with Continental Airlines. The clinic did not just open up for us to take a personal physical. The Flight Surgeons had to be there along with a full complement of medical personnel. We took our physical during the Uniformed Training Assembly (UTA) just like everyone else."

"The 'former Army person' she references is the person we believe may have created the fraudulent documents in an effort to injure President Bush. He has his own agenda and I doubt that he has any 'real ones' [documents].

Ms. Knox states emphatically that she is not acting for political motives, and has no formal relationship with any political party. She says she just wants to set the record straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 04:06 PM

Wal, there ya have it, as far as Rathergate goes -- correct facts, bad documents.

Now, Bush, on the other hand has been a snake's nest of altered facts AND bad documents.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 04:11 PM

100!! Woohoo!!!