Captain's Quarters -

We can maybe try to understand Rather's performance on the grounds of increasing age and that perhaps he's got Alzheimers and simply doesn't remember the details or the way it went down.

But what's Mapes' excuse for being in such an aggressive state of denial and paranoia?

After seening a little of Gunga Dan on Larry King, I am wondering if some sort of age related dementia is setting it? I just hope when I get that age my kids keep me away from a microphone.

It is truly stunning to see someone so detached from reality. "Fake but accurate", indeed.

Mary Mapes = pathological liar.

Good post. I disagree with "Mapes, Rather, and their ilk (fortunately a minority in the profession) cannot abide having Truth spoken to their Power, having to account for their corruption."

If you are saying that there are a minority of individuals in business that cannot abide their biases and inaccuracies being reported, you might have something there, though you might be overly generous.

But if the lack of abiding applies to the institutions that employee them, or more importantly, the importance attributed to the institutions (NYT, LAT, WAPO, Newsweek, Time, etc.), then we no longer dealing with a minority opinion, but a majority opinion.

I also question whether the blogs brought down Rather, Mapes and company. True, the blogs showed the inconsistencies, but the topic was almost invisible until the competing news outlets started reporting on it. It was an attack by peers that destroyed Rather and Mapes. And it appears that their "peers" are unsympathetic to the lawsuit, and are potentially going to destroy it before it gets off the ground.

amnesty is about to make a comeback and you devote a whole section on Dan Rather, and hardly a word on the Dream Act.
Great prioritizing !!!!!

It's truly laughable that this dingbat, with her lofty job at a huge broadcasting corporation, thinks that her "truthful" story was sandbagged by the blogosphere.

The story went down because it was a house of cards made up from a pack of lies. Period. No one who graduated from pre-K would buy it.

Mapes spent her entire career floating pieces of crap like this story, but for once, she was called on it and her response failed miserably.

The lefties who write on the Puffington Host suffer from the same persecution complex and paranoid delusions that this wretch does.

Mapes and her ilk have absolutely nothing of worth to offer this country. We already have a glut of cowardly stupidity emanating from the Democrat stench in Congress, we don't need failed media liars to add to it.

Rather may be distasteful to lots of you, but give him credit for being a talented and calculating extortionist, at least. CBS will protect it's inner secrets and never let it go to trial, settling for around 10% of the amount of the lawsuit. Rather knows it, and will quietly and happily collect the sum and move on. (no pun intended here)Is this a great country, or what?

Captain Ed writes, "Burkett claimed in an interview with Dan Rather that the memos were retyped and then photocopied specifically to prevent any independent authentication of the memos. . ."

Thanks for that belated update. It was the TANG documents controversy that got me into the blogosphere, but somehow I missed seeing that Burkett had admitting forging them. I assume, of course, that he was never able to produce 'originals'. And where are Mapes's claims without them? Dust in the wind.

Dan Rather's behavior is bizarre. Surely he doesn't need the money. Why embarrass himself further by claiming he was just a sock puppet for management?

/Mr Lynn

What an incredible display of narcissm. Mapes has constructed an entire alternate reality, her own Middle Earth. I was going to say "just so she doesn't have to admit that she screwed up", but this was no screwup. It's clear that Mapes, for whatever reason, has been carrying out a vendetta for over a decade, and has basically built her entire life about a grandiose vision of her own importance to the world. Actually, the thought occurs to me that had she not gone into media, she might have taken some other more direct route to express her fantasies -- such as assassination. So it may be that what happened with the TANG report was the least bad possible outcome. I can't wait to see what Dr. Sanity has to say about this.

Mary Mapes, on the other hand, suffers greatly from BDS and just wants everyone to say she was right all along. I feel sorry for her. Her legacy will be further blackened, and she will not get a dime, unless ol Danno shares some of his booty with her. Now that would be a story.

"...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."

She says that like it's a bad thing.

Thanks, Nate. I now have to clean up a cup of coffeee spewed all across my screen and keyboard.

Made my day.

Dan who?

Gee, Cropper, sorry that I forgot to run my editorial decisions by you today. Your refund is in the mail. Maybe you can use it to start your own blog.

Looks like the Captain had Cropper walk the plank. Aarrgh!

Okay, Mary, let me get this straight. Use of blogs to out closeted homosexual conservative politicians, righteous retribution against hypocrites. Use of blogs to out lies of those who are supposed to inform us of "facts", bully behavior. Got it.

Years ago, I read a story about Diane Rehm (has a show on NPR) in the DC alt weekly. At one point she was upset that callers to her show would challenge her guests instead of listen for information. In other words, her listeners should just unquestioningly absorb whatever she was telling them. Seems like Mary Mapes reads from the same book: do not question what your betters are telling you.

Captain,

The type WAS the problem. The memo was obviously written on a computer since no typewriter in 1972 (let alone the second hand ones they had at TANG) had proportional spacing. That memo could not have been written on a typewriter.

It was as if you had found an ancient Greek coin with the date 435 BC on it. You don't need to do any more analysis since no one at that date knew they were living 435 years before Jesus Christ.

I'm offended!

Having been one of those 'right wing crusaders who wrote mind numbing dissertaions on fonts and type' I take exception to being referred to as a 'bully boy of the Internet.'

CBS told us they had incontorvertible proof that the President shirked his duties to the United States while at TANG. The only tangible proof they offered was a series of memos supposedly authored contemporaneously with Bush's service at TANG. So the memo's authenticity was the lynchpin of the content's veracity.

Fake memos = false claims.

From the moment I saw copies of the memos they looked entirely wrong. As I was a long-time graphic designer and expert in typography I felt a duty to point out why these memos might be forgeries. So I wrote a mind-numbing dissertation on Kerning which was posted by the guys at Powerline. Not as a right-wing crusader but as a person who thought the President was being smeared unfairly.

Computer fonts = forged memos and therefore an obvious smear.

As a designer of my era I was plying my trade between the typewriter era and the computer age. The transition from a typewritten page to a word-processed page is subtle, and to the untrained eye is almost non-existent.

But that's the point!

CBS and the Bully Boys of Mass Media have been able to foist whatever 'evidence' they chose to support whatever story they ran with the public unable to challenge veracity and authenticity. This singular affair with CBS and the TANG documents was a watershed moment for the Internet and regular folks. A mechanism that enabled the little guy to challenge the mighty powers like Dan Rather and foaming-at-the-mouth producers like Ms. Mapes.

I'm just one of the little guys and small issue to this event but as Capt. Ed implied - we finally have a way for the least among us to actually speak truth to power.

I'm still offended but I take my offense as a badge of honor.

Blogs become inconvenient voices of real world in warm, fuzzy and ideology based rooms of MSM editors.
Did anybody notice that up to the blog time the MSM editors had a lot of credibility, power and didn't have to answer to practically anybody? These times are fortunately over, thanks to Captain and others.

sarcasim doesn't deny me my opinion Captain,
you are not as old as I thought.
Limbaugh also hates to be sassed.

What gets me is Mapes's gratuitous swipe at FOX News. The testosterone comparison is a vulgar and irrelvant ad hominum argument that has nothing to do with the credibility of the CBS story but everything with the attempt to discredit journalists that do not toe the anti-Bush party line.

I get the sense that the truth or falsity of the story isn't her primary concern. She's protecting the axiom that leftist ivy league elites like her possess an absolute birthright to supervise the formation of public opinion without being subject to criticism by citizens they consider to be of a lesser class.

Power to the People, baby.

Bored monkeys fling poo at gawkers around their cage... not news. Gawkers eagerly eat the poo... news? My experience is that these particular gawkers (Huffington Post commentors) subsist entirely on poo. It can't be good for the brain's digestive system.

The thing is even if we were to take the nutty theory of Burkett retyping the TANG memos and forging the signatures and destroying the originals at face value (despite the complete lack of logic in that theory), there are still the internal inconsistencies in style, timeline, and personnel references that make the documents blatant fakes.

It does not bug me that the Left is willing to forge documents to frame their opponents, I kind of expect it from them. Just that they do such a *bad* job, believe in them totally, and cannot possibly admit their faults. Self-criticism is an important part of remaining sane, and it seems to be missing from them.

Ya know, Georg, you put me in mind of why I got more involved in being a news junkie and some advocacy.

There were radic/libs back as far as the Seventies who said stuff they thought I was dumb enough to believe. That was an insult. So I, in my offendedness, would occasionally contact them to tell them, with cites, that they were wrong, and probably lying, and fewer people believed them than they thought.

They seemed to think I was the very rare exception. Wrong.

Mapes is insulting us. And she still thinks people believe her.

Wrong.

Haha, Mary Mapes was at my father's wedding on September 1st (they are neighbors and friends). When I was introduced to her, I wanted to ask her who exactly "Lucy Ramirez" was, but had to bite my tongue out of good manners.

I literally cannot understand what kind of mindset suggests earnestly that we should pour over the details of proven forgeries because they're consistent with the lies and hearsay testimony of people with an axe to grind against George Bush. Bush has been a terrible president; but he served honorably in the National Guard.

I wonder if what Rather has is catching?

The New Dan Rather Show:

Flakey But Accurate

Obviously, Mapes AND Rather have serious mental issues (as others have pointed out in the comments) and have for a long time, so the Alzheimer's excuse doesn't cut it.

One might say there's a very similar disconnect from reality in the entire left/Dem contingent (see: Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Obama, Shrillary, and the over 200 hard left members of Congress and the MoveOn/KOS crowd).

Given the subjectivism (reality is what I WANT it to be, not what it REALLY is) of post-modernism that permeates the left, and it's parallels to schizophrenia, Mapes and Rather are not surprising at all.

What's tragic, and potentially lethal for the country, is that 40 million people vote for these nutcases BY DEFAULT.

This is not to say Repubs/Conservatives don't have issues, such as latent superstitions, inclinations to their own version of statism/big government/collectivism.

Ms. Mapes and her cohorts have twisted reality in such a way as to make Orwell's Ministry of Truth seem almost reasonable. The fact that Rather and his group, including her, tried to influence the presidential election using false information that they KNEW was false completely escapes her. She and Gunga Dan are not only liars, they are stupid liars. An intelligent liar would be thinking of new lies to cover the old ones that have been exposed. She and Dan just keep on bleating the same old fabrications and their loyal supporters in the MSM continue to swallow all of this tripe with the glee and zeal of true believers. Alice, where is the looking glass when we really need it.

Michael Savage has an entire rant about liberalism being a mental disorder. I used to not think that is the case, but Gunga Dan presents a pretty good case study.

Dan has come to the end of his life and arrived at the same place as Nixon.

Isn't history wonderful?

All the many, many details about format, dates, etc. are really just piling on. It was clear that the documents were bogus within 48 hours when Charles Johnson recreated them with the default settings on Microsoft Word. It was over then - the rest is just dementia.

I get the sense that the truth or falsity of the story isn't her primary concern. She's protecting the axiom that leftist ivy league elites like her possess an absolute birthright to supervise the formation of public opinion without being subject to criticism by citizens they consider to be of a lesser class.

It's more of a liberal Texan thing than an Ivy League thing, I think. Outing Bush as a shirker was their "thing" because it was a Texas "thing," on their turf. Truth is Mapes and Rather are both liberal Texans and Bush really sticks in their craws. They sought to take him down, on a story most of the MSM had already taken a pass on, way back in the 2000 campaign. It blew up in their faces and then they did what liberals do so well: play the victim.

Anyone who attended USAF pilot training would recognize instantly that the documents were fake because of the terminology used. A real no brainer!!

MMapes:

...They [conservative blogosphere and its extremists] 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.

"Avenging angels of the right?" Interesting choice of phraseology. This couldn't possibly be Mapes' worldview that all opposition Conservatives are religious fanatics, could it? As to the charge that many were "determined to root out and decimate anything they believed to be disruptive" (and ignoring respective and overzealous "worldviews"), that she has right - but for the wrong reason. Many, even "normal people" were concerned that a fraud was being constructed and perpetuated by one wing of a dishonest industry led by the likes of a political hack in the institution that has special privilege in an open society. So, yes, rooting out and decimating both the lying sellers and their artificial wares is something the everyman can and should do because those tasked with doing that very thing in the profession that is supposed to do it has failed... miserably. Mapes and company were not victims though she would still spin that yarn for her construct. But spin as she might, we know still that the emperors of the MSM have no clothes and have been exposed.

These critics blathered on about everything but the content.

Simply amazing. She's still pushing "fake but accurate" reportage. Upset that citizens could fact check their work by actually disserting/churning out gigabytes of mind-numbing analysis, something much of the media seems to find too inconvenient to do in the rapid pace world it wants to cover, she chides an increasingly informed and awakened public. Gored oxes tend to incite wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Before the internet and the army of avenging angels, I'm convinced CBS/Rather/Mapes would have succeeded in their fraud. One just must wonder how many such frauds have been pushed onto an unsuspecting public. They enjoyed such latitude and heft as to define what is and what is not. They no longer enjoy such rarefied air and the nation is better off for it. Mapes and peers have no one to blame for their demise but themselves. Naturally, they won't. All we can do is mock them at this point because they do not deserve sympathy.

Michael Savage has an entire rant about liberalism being a mental disorder. I used to not think that is the case, but Gunga Dan presents a pretty good case study.

My 0.02 is that it isn't a disorder, per se, but it seems -- at times -- to be symptomatic of other (and I don't mean the "BDS" diagnosis) disordered thinking together with liberalism being a convenient refuge for those with disordered thinking: paranoia, etc.

As an anti-idiotarian living in the Seattle area, it is amusing (at times) to watch/listen to some of the locals (and, in my job, co-workers) figuratively run off of the rails [1] into hysteria, potty-mouth language, and anger, when even the idea that there might be a conservative viewpoint with validity, or, that there is a world of people who simply don't agree with them. Almost as if they've had some version of a breakdown, and just can't cope, rationally, with reality.

By living among others, so afflicted, no one is around to challenge their paranoia, and the external reinforcement -- serves to (effectively) "normalize" the aberrant thinking. It's like, what I've heard, about challenges surrounding those who've been involuntarily institutionalized, and have become convinced that they are the only ones 'aware of the truth' that the doctor is trying to get them, the CIA planted a chip in their brain, that.....

[1] I'm reminded, at times, of that one scene in the first LOTR movie (at the point when Frodo, in Rivendell, has recovered from his sword-wound) of Bilbo's reaction: the terrifying, almost monster-like transformation, when Frodo refuses to hand over the One Ring.

Jon Prichard,

You and your ilk were the real power behind the takedown. People with technical knowledge unwilling to let the case go, because they were personally and professionally offended by the clumsiness of the forgery, regardless of political affiliation.

Newcomer's analysis is another excellent example. His takedowns of Hailey and the CJR are also must reads.
http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

As a liberal commenter said, "His only conflict of interest is an inordinate desire to tell you more than you need to know about computer typography."

The lesson for the MSM is not to mess with typesetting fanatics on the Internet. They WILL get crushed like bugs. Or like Mr. Bean's car when it met a tank.

Here's an excellent summary of the situation.
http://www.101-280.com/archives/000413.html

"I apologize for the digression into specialized computer terminology here, but: this is ultra-super-thwackingly obviously a Microsoft Word file, for christ's sake, are you people at CBS frigging insane?"

RTWT.

Rathergate was a stunning vortex of countless world class stupidities, but two points stand out.

1. The story wasn't worth reporting in the first place.

2. The forged documents were losers even if real.

It's like a poker player betting $1 million to win a nickel, then turning over a badly forged busted flush to lose.

Why did it happen? The Swift Boat Vets. At the time of the report John Kerry hadn't given a general press conference in months due to fear of questions about it. He'd left the job of discrediting the Swift Boat Vets to his willing accomplices in the MSM.

The MSM were breaking their teeth on John O'Neill et al. There was at least one complete meltdown on the air while interviewing him.

http://michellemalkin.com/2004/10/22/lawrence-odonnell-and-liberals-unhinged/

Summary.
http://itsnoonsomewhere.net/blog/archive/2004/11/01/1763.aspx

"Because I believe the Swifties. I can't imagine 300 men of that age, from that era, from such diverse backgrounds and with such diverse politics, agreeing on anything - and yet they agree that John Kerry's Vietnam record is a fraud. And they've spent the last eight months charging into the teeth of the Democrat spin machine to tell us the truth, the same mediatainment/political spin machine that destroyed Juanita Broaderrick and Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones and everyone else that dared cross the Democrats. That's not a smear job. That's
courage. And my vote is my thanks to them."

Flying Precious:

Maybe Dan thinks the CBS anchor chair was "My Precious".

"One just must wonder how many such frauds have been pushed onto an unsuspecting public"

The trashing of Gen Westmoreland on 60 minutes, for one, comes to mind.

Slightly off topic, but I read somewhere that what angers conservatives is NOT that the main stream media is liberal, but that it will not admit it. And neither will their liberal followers/readers/listerners. This contrast between how the MSM "investigated" and approached Kerry's war service vs Bush's is the perfect example. We have a certain set of irrefutable facts:

1. Candidate A made his war service a centerpiece of his campaign. He traveled around the country introducing his "band of brothers" on stage; he saluted and "reported for duty," etc.
2. Candidate B, in sharp contrast, never spoke once about what he did in the 60's - never talked about flying the cantankorous and unreliable jets for which he was a pilot, etc. His service was NEVER used as a campaign issue by him. And - again, it is an irrefutable fact that regardless of family connections, early termination - whatever - he CLEARLY served his country during the war more than say...Bill Clinton - who actively evaded ANY sort of service. If Bill Clinton was "qualified" to serve as CIC of our nation, based upon the level of his service and his conduct in the 1960's, then Bush's should have been a non-issue altogether - -unless of course, this was an intentional attempt to sway the outcome of an election, as opposed to bringing important information on a candidate all voters should have.

1. When questions and uncertainties are raised about Candidate A's service - the Candidate who never lets us forget about his service - does the MSM ask any tough questions about - e.g., the Christmas in Cambodia story; the story behind each of those 4 Purple Hearts; a demand for FULL disclosure of records? Any sort of search or investigation for all of the actual facts - for the truth? Hell No. Their investigation centers on the accusers!! The Swifties are the ones dissected.
2. In contrast, Candidate B, who has already served four years as CIC; and whose past is long past.... - for HIM it was time for aggressive "investigative journalism" - I mean, they were even hounding him relentlessly for DENTAL records, for g-d's sake. It was like this was of Watergate proportions or something.

If we're going to make a big deal out of, and search for ALL the facts and ALL the truth about one's past, shouldn't the candidate who makes a big deal out of his service every chance he gets, also be examined, questioned, and investigated?

This is why I can have zero respect for liberals who attempt to look me in the eye and with a straight face assert that the media (with the exception of "right wing" Fox) is "objective." The blatant bias displayed by the treatment of the two candidate's biographical history was so totally and completely in-your-face, that anyone who tries to deny this is a lying jackass hypocrite. Or a complete moron, not worth bothering with. Take your pick.

Having read all 32 pages of the legal text, I see that Mr. Rather is essentially saying CBS is at fault for letting the story get out. According to Mr. Rather, he wasn't ready to 'publish' and that vetting was not over when CBS, about to be 'scooped' had to go public.

Claptrap.

Three points if I may:

1. If the documents used by Ms. Mapes and Mr. Rather were a simple re-typing of the originals, why were they NOT in a format used by the Air National Guard? Surely they could redact specific identifiers to ensure privacy and still hold the un-redacted originals for verification.

2. If, as Mr. Rather contends, he was simply doing what his bosses said to do, why did he not generate 'Memorandums for the record' to justify his poisition? Would those not be valuable in later years?

3. If, as Mr. Rather asserts, a private investigator, hired by CBS, possesses information that exonerates Mr. Rather and Ms. Mapes, why didn't Mr. Rather sue to have that information released to the public?

Clearly, Dan Rather is more interested in his (tarnished) image than the laughing-stock he made of himself, Mary Mapes and CBS in general.

"What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

If this thing actually does go to trial Mapes is going to have to be called to testify as one of the key witnesses in the case. And unless someone at CBS tells their lawyers to go easy on Mary. It's going to be brutal to watch (if they allow Court TV to broadcast it).

It always seemed funny to me, the idea that in 2004 someone was going to find THE smoking gun on Bush and the Texas Air NG. He had run in three elections before then (4 if you count his failed Congressional run back in the '70s) and nobody ever could find it.

But instead of concluding that maybe it just wasn't there to find, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes decided to put their reputations and credibility on the line and go with a story that to this day they cannot prove is either true or accurate in even its smallest particulars.

The story was false. The rest is just the sound of one hand clapping.

"To them, the fact that the president wimped out on his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War -- and then covered it up -- was no big deal."
If this is what she thinks of George Bush for joining the National Guard, what did she say about Bill Clinton lying to dodge the draft? Saying how he loathed the military. Did she have similar things to say about Bill, or is there a double standard here? Rhetorical. We all know the answer.

Poetic justice would be for CBS' attorneys to come around with a wheelbarrow-full of money to sign up as expert witnesses those who participated in the original TANG memo takedown.

Yes, please, Mr Rather, get Mapes up there in the chair, we'd love to hear her under oath.

Discovery! Discovery! I want discovery! I want CourtTV!

Won't happen, though. (Sigh).

what is wrong with all of you who find fault with rather/mapes? you simply refuse to accept their tang story even tho they possess intellects that far surpass ours.they are clearly superior to you and i.you simply won't accept the truth.they are both members of the msm liberal elite and that very fact imbues them with intelligence and integrity that far exceeds that of us poor unwashed minions on the right. elsie civil

The problem the Republicans will have with this story is that it will affect their chances in 2008. I personally think that the Republican presidential candidate will win BUT I wouldn't bet much money on it right now. Most Americans know or will find that few of the Republican presidential candidates have military experience. I believe only McCain and Duncan Hunter served and neither one is going to win the nomination. That means the Republican presidential nominee will be someone who talks tough but avoided his chance to prove that he practices what he preaches.

How does the Rather lawsuit play into that? The lawsuit will not be limited to CBS' mis-or-malfesance in its investigation of Bush's TANG record. It will go far enough to and will eventually prove whether Bush received preferential treatment to get into TANG and whether he ever reported for duty between May 1972 when he went to Alabama on a political campaign and May 1973 when he came up for his annual evaluation. Bush won't testify in this case-there is no basis or reason for calling him as a witness. But, the facts of his record will be established and Bush will have to comment. If it turns out that Bush did not recieve preferential treatment to get into the guard and/or that he did report for duty between 5/72 and 5/73, the story is finished and no damage will be done to the Republican nominee for president.

The danger lies in the story's being true and my instincts tell me it is. There are several reason for that and all but one is too complicated to go into here and that one I cannot ignore. Bush has never denied receiving preferential treatment or that he failed to report for duty between 5/72 and 5/73. Whenever those questions come up he replies that he was "honorably discharged" from TANG, implying that he wouldn't have recieved the honorable discharge had he not reported for duty. (Let's be honest. Bush is even slicker than Clinton and you have to listen to what he doesn't say more than to what he does say.) I've studied the matter enough to believe that his failure to report was handled by his allowing to make up his annual point deficiency after May, 1973 when he re-reported so he could be dicharged in the summer of 73 several months before his 5 year committment was up in 9/73.

Back to 2008. If this story is in the news during the election cycle and it appears to the public that Bush lollygagged his way into and through TANG ,it will highlight the Republican nominee's lack of military credentials and make people wonder if Repblicans are all talk and no action when it comes to miltary matters. The everyday American doesn't like rich people such as Bush using his connections to avoid things that the average American couldn't get away with-especially with the situation Bush got us into in Iraq by not having enough troops. And I'll bet that is what people will think happened if this story goes where I am afraid it will go.

RE: Spencer53 (September 22, 2007 12:40 PM)

"...If this story is in the news during the election cycle and it appears to the public that Bush lollygagged his way into and through TANG, it will highlight the Republican nominee's lack of military credentials and make people wonder if Repblicans are all talk and no action when it comes to miltary matters."

Using Bush as the example and based on his insistence to first, go to Afghanistan, then to Iraq, and then to stay against "popular" opinion (though I disagree with the polls indicating popularity) doesn't really support that interpretation. Lollygagging or not, one cannot say Bush was not a man of action in military matters. Far from it as evidenced by budgets submitted, soldiers committed, and policies followed. One need not go back a generation to observe behavior... just look at the man's Presidential record. Contrast this with any (ANY!) Democrat in the presidential race and I'm pretty certain the public will know that Republicans, any of them excepting for Ron Paul, are more action than talk WRT military matters. For better or worse, the level of seriousness on the Democrat side regarding military matters pales in comparison to the Republicans. Democrats will need to showcase anything other than the military because perceived lollygagging will get them nowhere.

RE: Spencer53 (September 22, 2007 12:40 PM)

"...If this story is in the news during the election cycle and it appears to the public that Bush lollygagged his way into and through TANG, it will highlight the Republican nominee's lack of military credentials and make people wonder if Repblicans are all talk and no action when it comes to miltary matters."

I doubt this will float as an issue. Hillary is devotedly married to a draft dodger, Edwards didn't serve, Obama didn't serve.

AnonymousDrivel and Elle: You're both whistling past the graveyard. The Democrats will not matter. People will vote based on their perceptions and that does not bode well for the Republicans on national security/the War On Terrorism. To be blunt, neither of you is co- nservative. You are both right-wingers who believe what the government says rather than doing doing you're own individual thinking.

Americans know that Democrats oppose the war in Iraq. Most Americans now oppose the war because they realize that Bush was never serious about winning it. That benefits the Democrats. Americans don't care that a president didn't serve as long as he doesn't put the military where it doesn't belong and gives it full support when he does. Bush has failed on both counts in Iraq. That war is now "unwinnable' because there will not be a democracy in Iraq. We can get out of Iraq with a respectable tie by installing a dictator frindle to the US.

Your posts were telling because you did not dispute my opinion that Bush will likely be proven to have bobbed and weaved into and through TANG. Now, tell me if you agree that the Rather lawsuit will reveal whether Bush received preferential treatment to get into TANG and whether he reported for duty between 5/73 and 5/73 because that's what will matter. If Bush is guilty on either count, the Republicans will be in trouble.

Put simply, Elle, the American people knew Clinton was a draft dodger and elected him twice because they accepted the fact that he avoided a war he opposed. Bush supported the Vietnam war but avoided it by going into TANG.

Again, tell me if you agree with me that he received preferential treatment to get into TANG and whether he reported for duty between 5/73 and 5/73.

RE: Spencer53 (September 22, 2007 9:00 PM)

"...To be blunt, neither of you is co- nservative. You are both right-wingers who believe what the government says rather than doing doing you're own individual thinking."

You have no idea what you're talking about. Pretty bold assumptions you've got going on there.

"Your posts were telling because you did not dispute my opinion that Bush will likely be proven to have bobbed and weaved into and through TANG."

Just because I didn't dispute your opinion on a matter does not mean that I agree with it. Regulars know that I can get rather long-winded, so for the sake of brevity, I picked one point to emphasize the folly of using Bush as the bellwether indicative of Republican laxity on military matters. Hearing years of "Bush the warmonger" and "American hegemony" from the end of a gun from Lefties is a pretty good barometer that a considerable portion of the population knows Bush is no pushover. Nevertheless, just because I limit my response is no indication of agreement or disagreement on other positions you may state.

As to your assertion that "Bush was never serious about winning [the war in Iraq]"... poppycock. As to any lawsuit, we will discover nothing new about Bush yet we will discover plenty about Rather, Mapes, the CBS newsroom, and the CBS news division. I hope there's a very public trial with Rather, the Democrat, attacking CBS staff and administration, overwhelmingly Democrat. Discovery will reveal how liberally biased they were/are and Bush's record, or the perception of it, will not change one iota. Perhaps it's more likely that the nation will see Exhibit A of how dishonest the MSM has been, an observation increasingly noted and evidenced by more and more viewers as the viewing demographics move further and further away from legacy media.

I'll be loading up on popcorn and beverages. Right-wingers can have "beverages", can't they?

AnonymousDrivel: Anyone who uses the word "poppycock" is not to be taken seriously. At least your non de plume shows some self-awareness.

Don't tell me Bush has ever been serious about winning the war. Shinshecki (sp?) was right when he said it would take 300,000 troops to establish a democracy in Iraq. Bush though he could get by with less than half that. We used 500,000 just to throw Hussein out of Iraq in 1991. That should have told Bush Shinsecki was correct.

The Rather story is dangerous for Republicans. The difference between you, the right-winger, and I the conservative is that I do not let my emotions interfer with my judgment.

"Poppycock?" Do you wear tweed suits, smoke a pipe and go to wine and cheese tastings? LOL

RE: Spencer53 (September 23, 2007 7:45 AM)

"The Rather story is dangerous for Republicans. The difference between you, the right-winger, and I the conservative is that I do not let my emotions interfer with my judgment."

More poppycock.

Yes, that of course explains your sprinkled attempts to use intended ad hominems of "right-winger," noting the nom de plume (I think you're #3,112 to provide such original and insightful comment), and obsessing over a throwaway, silly word.

A bit of a digression but to be clear, the conservative answer was to double up troops (regardless of force-multipliers we now have with weapons technology) to prove seriousness of war?

...Americans don't care that a president didn't serve as long as he doesn't put the military where it doesn't belong and gives it full support when he does...

The conservative answer in Iraq is regardless of military pedigree (and I agree that its absence should/does not disqualify a President from making military decisions) that Bush should have thrown 100+% more bodies and logistical assets into a conflict that should never have been waged? If it was a mistake to go in before we knew the extent of Saddam's WMD program, why would planning to have more troops there be appropriate? And why is 300,000 thousand the magic number? Why not 1,000,000? Surely even more of a good thing.

Obviously, troop levels are heartily debated by military brass, and only in hindsight can we argue that this Division could have used 23% more human assets in the Eastern theater, that that Division could have used 105% more in the Southern theater, and that the other Division in the North could have reduced its footprint by 43%. And none of this type of calculation that is heavily influenced by a thinking enemy is indicative of "seriousness" of intent by those who send troops. But by all means wave your hands over your secret weapon of a crystal ball with its 20/20 hindsight switch on and tell Bush what amount of personnel is required to indicate the conservative approach regardless of what assets are available, the perceived urgency of threat, what domestic politics are in play, what mood the country is in, and what allies might think or do in response. We all know it's just a big RISK board with Bush moving the pieces sans the Pentagon.

I take your position on this as seriously as I take Ron Paul in general... the other "true" conservative. At least that's a step up from Rather and Mapes.