CBS Document Roundup
Published September 14, 2004
Five days later, the big media, especially the papers, are critical of CBS, and so are a lot of other people.
The Washington Post asserts 'growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes."' as the man they relied upon to 'defend' the documents says that he was unable to authenticate them.
Jonah Goldberg believes (surprise) that the Age of Dan Rather is over, comparing him to the giant herbivores whose skeletons rest now in museums.
The New York Times reports that CBS employees are "distressed".
And the New York Post's John Podhoretz doesn't mince words: "There's no need to pull any punches now. I'm going to be blunt here: Anybody who spends an hour reviewing the evidence and the expert testimony knows they're forgeries. The discrediting has gone on now for five straight days. The conclusion isn't just overwhelming, it's inarguable."
Given that CBS is getting hammered by practically everyone, and that the documents, even to the untrained eye, bear much more resemblance to Word documents than to anything produced by a 1972 typewriter or typesetter that critics have been able to produce.
What is CBS to do?
I really don't know...but I'm glad I didn't greenlight these memos.
love it, hate it, there's more of it at pacetown.
- CBS Document Roundup
- Published: September 14, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Jeremy Chrysler
- Jeremy Chrysler's BC Writer page
- Jeremy Chrysler's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Even assuming they're forged, it doesn't change the basic facts:
Kerry served.
Bush didn't.
ie. one is a hero with a silver star and personal integrity, the other is a Privileged Chickenhawk.
~Next!
Silver Star? Well maybe, maybe not, and we already know his first purple is a figment of his imagination.
jej would you care to provide a link that gives proof that Bush didn't win the 2000 election?
I still don't see how at least 3.5 great years of good service (and the rest just average) in the National Guard is anything to squak at? Sure, it wasn't Vietnam -- but hell, it was our military, and he served us well. Here here to both of them.
I would say enough of looking back 30 years - what are these candidates going to do for America and the World today and tomorrow - what happened 30 years ago is frankly irrelevant to the pressing issues of today.
America should look forward not backwards
marc:
try this link
www.georgewbushisapussy.com
or try
www.dickcheneyisanasswipe.com
really marc....what is a freaking link going to prove?
jack e. jett
one of the candidates has a track record in the office in question. It seems to me the focus of the debate should be whether or not you approve of that candidate's handling of the office, and whether or not you think the other candidate can do a better job.
Yeah! And President Clinton served too! Oh, wait, no... he didn't.
Vic
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/19820)
as much as i hate to admit it. i think they are forged. worse than that, i am thinking that bush is going to be our next president. he may really get elected this time.
i am trying to find a positive way of looking at all of this.
jack