Can’t ignore it, folks. I have to keep you updated on Dan Rather’s forged memos.
The Houston Chronicle says:
If Burkett does prove to be the source of the documents, CBS got them from a man with a well-established history of Bush loathing.In an article Burkett wrote for the Internet last year he compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon as one of “the three small men” who sought to rule through tyranny. “Three small men who wanted to conquer and vanquish,” Burkett wrote. Burkett confirmed authorship of that article in the February Chronicle interview.
Are the faked memos traced back to Kinko’s?
Power Line: “Is Power Line a more reliable source of information than the New York Times? That’s damning with faint praise, but, for what it’s worth, we are.”
PoliPundit illustrates an important point.
Update: Power Line’s Big Truck appeared on FOX.
Update II (5:28 a.m.): Power Line reveals more CBS sloppiness, and HobbsOnline reports on more trouble for Rather.
ABC:
The man cited in media reports as having allegedly pressured others in the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush is speaking out, telling ABC News in an exclusive interview that he never sought special treatment for Bush.Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush’s unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.
AllahPundit and Protein Wisdom comment.
Update III (9:10 p.m.): According to Power Line, a non-blogger is trying to take credit for breaking the memos scandal story! Well I never…
Allahpundit comments on this, too.
Check out Corant’s chronology of Rathergate.
Joe at Evangelical Outpost asks: “[F]or all the controversy, intrigue, and interest, you probably don’t really even know what the memo says, do you? No. But that’s okay. Because the memo isn’t about the message. The memo is the message.”
Well, that should be sufficent for us to discredit anything that he has to say.
Bush=Hitler — the surest sign of a lack of credibility.
Comment by ThePrecinctChair — 09.17.04 @ 10:19 am
Isn’t it amazing that the libs call George Bush “Hitler”. As far as I can tell, I dont see Jews, Christians, or any other religion being rounded up into concentration camps. Havent seen any crematoriums…..havent seen it. If anything, they have the wrong person…..Saddam is more like Hitler. Gassing his OWN people….the mass graves…the shredders….the cutting off of hands and ears…and the list goes on and on and on.
We live in the best country in the world. We have so much freedom that we dont know what to do with. We are so blessed and people take it for granted.
Comment by Rose — 09.17.04 @ 4:41 pm
Rose,
When did Burkett say Bush is Hitler? if you read the part which Le Shawn Posted it says “…compared Bush to Hitler, and Napoleon as one of “the three small men” who sought to rule through tyranny.” i dont think that literally means that hes alleging Bush is setting up concentration camps for Jews and gassing people of the US for the purpose of retaining power.
Comment by Daniel — 09.17.04 @ 5:01 pm
Daniel, for once you’re right, but only on one extremely narrow point. Burkett didn’t actually write Bush IS Hitler.
However, Burkett’s overall message IS that morally Bush=Hitler=Napoleon. His claim that Bush Sought to rule thru tyranny is bogus. Bush doesn’t even make the top 100, let alone 10,000. Yet Burkett says Bush ranks in the top three. Huh???
If one objectively considers the fact that Burkett posted his ravings on sites that espouses the Bush=Hitler and likes throwing around hyerbolic terms like “BushHitler”, “Bush is evil” and so on. Rose is then perfectly correct in asking if Bush is as bad as Hitler as claimed by Burkett, where are the atrocities? Where is even a shred of truth?
The biggest problem with the Moonbat thinking process, that you subscribe to, is that context is always optional.
1) ALWAYS EVIL:
Bush IS evil. And accordingly, the facts are spun to support this meme, such as the current topic.
2) ALWAYS GOOD:
Byrd IS NOT a racist. Moonbats defend him by using the that-was-then-this-is-now context; he used to be a KKK leader and fought against civil rights, BUT that was the realities of the Jim Crow era, and now he’s rehabilitated himself by simply being a member of the democratic party.
That he never repudiated his past, like say George Wallace, makes Byrd a closet racist which IS a dangerous thing. That he no longer publically organizes lynchings and voter suppression, but now supports “progressive” programs is simply the political equivalent of keeping the underclass on the plantation. Different vehicle, same goal!
2) ALWAYS NUANCED:
Lincoln is a prime example of a person being good or evil, depending on the oxymoron:
Lincoln WAS a racist. He once said he’d rather not go to war over the issue of slavery.
Where’s the context? Where’s the acknowledgement that Lincoln, like other abolitionists, personally thot that slavery was a sin against humanity and was trying to find any possible alternative short of war?
But inconsistently so, when it suits a particular argument, Moonbats readily point to Lincoln as a beacon of enlightenment. Come again?? Which is it? Lincoln is evil or Lincoln is good?
Comment by Andy — 09.18.04 @ 1:16 pm