Another Update: Check it out. Someone’s blogging under “myopic zeal” already. 
Heads rolled! These are what the consequences of sloppy journalism should be. In a failed attempt to smear George Bush, four employees at CBS were FIRED over their role in Rathergate:
The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.
The correspondent on the story, CBS News anchor Dan Rather, is stepping down as anchor of CBS Evening News.
“We deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday report did to the American public, which has a right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy,” said CBS President Leslie Moonves. (My emphasis)
Here’s a PDF of the 234-page report (HTML via Wizbang). I’ll have more to say on this later. Right now I’m raking Bush over the coals for violating the prohibition against “covert propaganda.” After I’m done, Dan Rather will be raked.
I’ll use this opportunity to promote my recent National Review Online article, “The Blogosphere’s Smaller Stars.”
Stay tuned…
Unrelated link: Joe Carter on “Breaking out of the Evangelical Ghetto.”
More Rathergate report blogging: Wizbang, Hugh Hewitt, Ratherbiased.com , Rathergate.com, VodkaPundit, Discarded Lies (Charles of Little Green Footballs), Power Line, Patterico, Pejmanesque, Michelle Malkin (several posts), Captain’s Quarters (and here), Blogs for Bush, INDC Journal, Politburo Diktat, PoliPundit, The Moderate Voice, The Sundries Shack, Michael King, Democracy Project (and here)…
Hey, this is what bloggers do!
Power Line’s John Hinderacker will be interviewed on CBS tonight.
Update (1/11): The best commentary on Rathergate?
PoliPundit has a couple of good follow-up posts on the report here and here.
Also see Captain’s Quarters on the Washington Post’s and Weekly Standard’s assessment of the report.
Leave it to bloggers to make information easier to access. Kevin at Wizbang has created a paginated web version of the 234-page report. Read the report. I plan to read it and blog about it, and I’ll be very “intolerant” of commenters who haven’t. 
More from INDC Journal.
Captain Ed: “Needless to say, there are many more instances of carelessness, prevarications, and corner-cutting in this report. But the substantial representation made by the Thornburgh-Boccardi report demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that CBS allowed Mapes to run wild with this story, that it followed none of its own internal checks and balances, and that CBS management simply allowed Mapes to put whatever she wanted on the air. It is impossible to imagine that CBS would have done anything like this on a story about John Kerry or anyone else other than George Bush.”
Power Line in still picking apart that report.
We can thank CBS for putting “fake, but accurate” into the pop culture lexicon. What a bunch of bozos. Lol.
Comment by Tom B. — 01.10.05 @ 12:39 pm
Weeks, not months, eh?
Link: CBS News | CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story | January 10, 2005?10:25:53.Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy,…
Trackback by A planet where apes evolved from MAN?!? — 01.10.05 @ 12:59 pm
Tom, don’t forget their earlier contribution: Wardrobe Malfunction.
Anyway, I am dissapointed, but not surprised, that Rather is left alone and that the report does not spot any bias or agenda. Zeal for a scoop is the great sin, seems to be the gist of the report.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.10.05 @ 1:03 pm
Praise the Lord and pass the ammo??
Anyhoo more heads need to roll.
Comment by Andy — 01.10.05 @ 1:06 pm
LaShawn,
I believe the pink slips of the 4 people fired are forgeries!
Comment by Bucktowndusty — 01.10.05 @ 1:24 pm
Comment by LB — 01.10.05 @ 1:27 pm
This flap a see-BS is only a smoke screen, the names of the people who got fired are the ones that have surfaced publicly and have been in the forefront all this time, scapegaots.The Liberal media is like a house infested with cockroaches, just because you kill 3 or 4,it does NOT eliviate the problem, because as with cockroaches the same applies to Liberals. To get rid of them one must get to the root of the source and destroy it because if you dont they will surely destroy us.
See-BS is not unique though the other two alphabet networks are just as bad, totally infested with liberalism, hopefully this is just the beginning. Of all the major networks Fox is the only one that seems to be thriving, CBS,NBC an ABC their rating are dropping as people finally realize that what they are putting out as News is Not and just a slanted opinion of the Left-wing kook fringe. I would think if i owned one of those networks and the ratings are constantly dropping, then there must be problem
and I would surely make some drastic changes and that would be starting right at the top of the heap and work my way down, it would be pink-slips for Peter Jennings and anyone who so much showed his type of arrogance.
Mark
Comment by Mark — 01.10.05 @ 1:45 pm
Liberal media outlets like CBS should just drop all the pretense of objectivity. They would have more credibility if they would just “out” themselves once and for all. Then the viewing public can have some “Real” discourse on the issues. I believe the “confession” would be as liberating as a Christian confessing their sins before God.
Comment by DeJuan — 01.10.05 @ 1:58 pm
Heads did roll, but my impression of the report is that there is nothing new in it. What took C-BS so long to take action? C-BS is sorry…that they got caught attempting to influence an election with people so incompetent they couldn’t forge a document properly.
Comment by Tom Blogical — 01.10.05 @ 3:01 pm
Poor Charles Johnson (www.littlegreenfootballs.com). What a day for his blog to be down, after all the work he did exposing CBSNews lies…….
Comment by John — 01.10.05 @ 3:09 pm
Did C-BS apologize to President Bush, no, and had the gall to say”Boccardi and Thornburgh said they could find no evidence to conclude the report — aired two months before Bush won re-election — was politically motivated”.
What a crock!!!!!
Comment by Tom — 01.10.05 @ 3:14 pm
La Shawn the heads that rolled were all little people junior execs, order takers not order givers. None of the decision makers got fired. This was to be expected given the two men on the panel; both Bush haters. They looked everywhere except where the smear was; a little like Kofi not knowing his son was on the take for five years - do not tell me I do not want to know. They did not find political movtives becaus they did not look for them, in fact looked away from them. A coverup that would do justice to Nixon.
Rod Stanton
Comment by Rod Stanton — 01.10.05 @ 3:15 pm
DeJuan….agreed regarding CBS and how media should just forget all objectivity.
My question to you is…what do we do with FOX…a network that openly promotes former Republican Party operatives to positions on its newsdesks?
Comment by Mike M. — 01.10.05 @ 4:38 pm
I’d suggest taking up Neal Boortz’s challenge: find evidence of bias in FoxNews’s news reporting. Last I heard, no one had been able to do it.
And what do we do with Fox? Well, if we’re blessed enough to have it as part of our cable/dish package (and I’m not), we watch it.
Power Line finally has a take on the report. I thought it would never come!
Comment by LawWife — 01.10.05 @ 4:42 pm
Comment by Rod Stanton
Rod, that’s a canard. Betsy West was Senior VP in charge of all of CBS News Primetime, which includes both 60 Minutes shows and the 48 Hours Series. Josh Howard was the executive producer of 60 Minutes Wednesday - the top enchalada there. Mary Murphy was Howard’s Deputy. Mary Mapes was Dan Rather’s top producer - and was a force to be reckoned with at CBS News, due to her close times with Rather.
Finally, there is the “forced” retirement of Dan Rather this spring.
These were not little fish, these were decision makers.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.10.05 @ 5:42 pm
Russell,
Dan isn’t retiring. He’s still going to be working at CBS and 60 minutes. He’s just stepping (being pushed?) away from the anchor chair.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.10.05 @ 5:48 pm
How could Thornburgh have concluded that there was no proven political bias driving this story after all the things that were in his own report? Good grief, he’s got them arranging to have Burkett paid off by “trustable” editors who will make lucrative book deals for Burkett just so he will hand over the phony documents! For him to include that evidence and yet deny the obvious presence of bias makes Thornburgh look like a laboratory subject for research on short attention spans…..
Comment by Dave — 01.10.05 @ 6:54 pm
Hi Dave - I haven’t read the report yet, but nothing in it will surprise me. This is a good day for blogging.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.10.05 @ 6:59 pm
It took me all afternoon to read that report (I’m home with the flu) (which possibly explains why it took all afternoon) and I’m mostly satisfied except that I wonder why the conservative slant of the blogs was emphasized so much while the liberal bias of Mapes et al. was discounted. “Bushies”? “Blood in the water”? But I’m glad that the docs weren’t declared fakes outright because that caused Pres. Bush’s military service to have to be gone over in detail, which I think will be a shock and a revelation to a lot of people.
Moonves’ letter was also satisfying except that I think a personal apology to GWB was called for. I really do. No one has apologized to him for this indefensible smear on his honorable service.
Comment by Laura — 01.10.05 @ 7:00 pm
Maybe I’m crazy…but didn’t an 86 year old woman come out and say (on a later edition of 60 Minutes II) that the facts were essentially correct in the memo, but the document itself was incorrect.
I admit it’s shameful forged documents were used, but I find it hard to believe the “liberal” media side-swiped this 86-year old woman’s (I would certainly call her a “primary resource”) claims that the facts were right in the letter.
Laura, GWB is not owed an apology. If he had been less cryptic about his days in the Guard then perhaps CBS wouldn’t have done such a great job in screwing up.
Here’s what can be safely agreed upon…even by some on the left. George Bush did not fully honor his duty to the guard. No documents have been released saying he did. While the White House played games in early ‘04 to try to prove his contract was completed, John Kerry was preparing to be smeared by the Swift Boat (Idiots) for Truth…who at best didn’t work on the same boat with Kerry…as would later come out.
I don’t condone CBS’ stupidity or Dan Rather’s utter arrogance…I just wish more attention would be paid to the meat of the matter. The forged memos were certainly important pieces of this warped story. But, more importantly, if the “liberal” media were out to get Bush, why not pursue this 86-year old woman (who I must admit was totally, altogether “there” when I saw her interviews) who corroborated everything in the letter?
I can admit Dan Rather is a liberal. As a liberal I’ll even say CBS News could have liberal leanings. But, can you right-wingers swallow your pride and admit half the staff on Fox’ news desk are conservative? Brit Hume, Tony Snow…et. al. And of course, the king of them all…Roger Ailes, a former Republican who was deep in bed with party politics in the 80s and 90s.
I’m blathering.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.10.05 @ 10:01 pm
“No Political Bias”
I just watched the CBS Evening News Without Dan Rather (it was given to Bob Schieffer to face the camera tonight), and one of their first pronouncements was that the report found no evidence of political bias. They interviewed Thornburgh…
Trackback by Democracy Project — 01.10.05 @ 10:11 pm
4 CBS Workers: FIRED
NEW YORK - Four CBS News staffers were fired Monday following the release of an independent investigation that said a “myopic zeal” led to the airing of a discredited story about President Bush’s military service. The panel’s 224-page report detail…
Trackback by The Political Teen — 01.10.05 @ 11:22 pm
Very, very neat to see your article on NRO.
As for the CBS internal investigation, they seem to be over looking the fact that there was an obvious attempt by their employees to effect the out come of a presidential election.
As far as I am concerned, there should have been an FEC and an FCC investigation.
To use the public airwaves a TV or radio broadcaster must serve the public interest. ‘Rathergate’ did not serve the public interest.
If any of the radio stations I work for did something like this, the FCC would investiagte and would then revoke our license to broadcast.
CBS should no longer be broadcasting.
But of course, nothing will happen and all of their licenses are safe.
Comment by Keith — 01.11.05 @ 3:06 am
MikeM, did you read the report?
I don’t know what you mean about Bush being cryptic about dates. The report gives a timeline about Bush’s guard service, including existing documentation. *All* of the documentation that shows he didn’t serve out his time or didn’t follow orders consisted of the Killian memos. Go read the report.
The National Guard produced documentation for their purposes, not to attack or defend a President 30 years later. Maybe if they’d known at the time that GWB would be President they would have produced more documentation.
The report makes it very clear that Mapes was after Bush. Else why the term “blood in the water”? All of her accusations were either based on fake documents or were pure speculation. Heck yes, he deserves an apology.
Comment by Laura — 01.11.05 @ 9:27 am
Also, when you read the report, pay attention to what that 86-year-old woman really said.
Comment by Laura — 01.11.05 @ 9:29 am
Dan was too busy covering the Republican Convention and a Hurricane in Florida to give much time to the details of a newly discovered 30 year old document, provided by a known partisan, with the potential of taking down the person in the most powerful political position in the world.
Dan has been too busy since to investigate the origin of this faked document that has taken down four powerful political(oops) positions at CBS, threatens at least two more including his own, and has tainted the integrity of one of the oldest MSM networks in the world.
The in_dependent investigators paid by CBS found no proof of ulterior motive or bias at CBS in its rush to present this document to the American voters in the middle of a very close Presidential election, followed by a vigorous defense of it in News Broadcasts after it’s validity was questioned. However, the CBS ‘investigators’ admit it is just their opinion, because they actually didn’t spend much time investigating this.
Did these people just fall off a potato truck? Of course not. Do they think we did? Of course, and that’s why the ’sphere’ loves adjusting their self-importance attitude.
Comment by Jim R — 01.11.05 @ 9:49 am
We have to read the report? Phooey! I was planning on just reading your comments. This sounds like work. And I’ll bet the writing in the report isn’t as good as yours. Well, here goes. On to the report.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 01.11.05 @ 10:16 am
I just noticed this in Mike’s comment:
“But, can you right-wingers swallow your pride and admit half the staff on Fox’ news desk are conservative?”
Of course they are. Tony Snow fills in for Rush Limbaugh sometimes. I don’t know of anybody ever not admitting that half the staff are conservative. And why shouldn’t they be? Is it somehow shameful to be conservative? Is there a rule somewhere that only liberals can be on news desks? Ideally, all news desk staffs would be half conservative.
Comment by Laura — 01.11.05 @ 10:27 am
Mike M..
Half of the commentators on Fox are more than likely conservative. And as Laura so rightly stated, there isn’t anything wrong with that. You see Mike, when I watch Fox I “know” what I am getting. When I watch the other networks CBS, NBC, ABC etc, they are faking objectivity and most people see right through it. So they should just be upfront and say, “Hey, we are promoting liberalism here because that is what we are.” I may not agree with what they are saying, but I would respect them.
Comment by DeJuan — 01.11.05 @ 10:46 am
La Shawn, OT here: Greg Hammonds, whose wife died from breast cancer, is hosting a comment fundraiser (http://www.californiahammonds.com/) for the National Breast Cancer Foundation’s programs for education and low-cost or free mammograms for low-income women. For every comment made, he or one of the sponsor’s will donate $1. If you have time to briefly comment, or even better, mention it, it would do a great good.
Comment by Rae — 01.11.05 @ 10:50 am
Half of Fox News are conservatives. That’s why they get to call themselves fair and balanced.
At the alphabet networks there appear to be no conservatives and that is how you get MYOPIC zeal.
Comment by Mike O — 01.11.05 @ 11:33 am
Thank God for blogs. I don’t know why anyone thinks any media group would accurately investigate itself. What other industry do we give such deferrence to? Blogs are an outlet of freedom, and that free expression will cause a lot of people to take a hard look at things they thought they could hide.
Comment by Ken Clifton — 01.11.05 @ 11:43 am
Laura, What did the 86 year old lady really say?
“Also, when you read the report, pay attention to what that 86-year-old woman really said”.
Comment by Tom — 01.11.05 @ 12:00 pm
Mike M
What possibly be wrong with half of the people at Fox being Conservative? That comment reminds me of my former feminist days when three women would be appointed to a 97 member group and some guy would complain that the women were taking over. Of course, half the people at Fox should be Conservative. How many do you think there should be? Two? One? None. Or are you assuming that only Liberals give “objective” opinions? It seems to me that the CBS Report just disproved that assumption. At least now I know why I quit watching CBS years ago.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 01.11.05 @ 12:05 pm
Mike, it’s too much to copy and paste. Go to the report here
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf
and scroll down to page 198 of the report, which is page 208 of the pdf file.
Comment by Laura — 01.11.05 @ 12:15 pm
Bias is in the perspective of the watcher I guess. And from my perspective Fox News is a little to the left of center. They do come close to being balanced though.
Why do I say that?
Because if you look at shows like Fox News Sunday or all the daytime shows combined you see what gets reported on or debated about is not too far off from CNN.
Let’s take the stem cell research debate for example:
I believe the private sector is where the money is best spent for finding a supply (for the cure) for the demand (for the cure) ((market forces)) for whatever ailment people think stem cells might help. And the private sector has done great work in this area and found more uses with umbilical stem cells than the federal government. With respect to embryonic stem cell research neither the government nor private sector has found uses for them.
My point:
During the debate the debate centered around the federal government funding stem cell research and or how much Bush would pander to the religious right. EVEN ON FOX NEWS. The debate didn’t center around the fact that Bush split the middle and had for the first time ever granted federal funds toward stem cell research. The debate didn’t center around whether this was a proper use of taxpayer dollars and why can’t the great work of the private sector be the way to go.
On almost every issue the debate centers a little to the left on Fox News and way to the left (no recognition that there is even another side to the debate) on other channels.
Laura, thank you for your great perspective. Each year Bush was in the Guard he earned more flight credits than needed. The first 4 years he earned more than twice as many credits. Towards the end when his plane was decommissioned and he asked and was granted time to go to college people want to assert whatever they want to irresponsibly. Me wonders if Mike M should have his work cancelled/removed as Mr. Williams had his work removed by a newspaper and Mr. Williams didn’t even lie as Mike M. did.
Comment by Baklava — 01.11.05 @ 1:01 pm
Mike M:
IF the liberal media were out to get Bush, what rock have you been hiding under. The President has been called every name in the Book from a liar to Adolf Hitler, this of course has been encouraged by the main stream press. What democrat president had a book written about how to kill the president, NOT one but the liberals have seen fit to put one out about President Bush.
The Swift-Vets came out in March with a press conference and not one major network deemed it important enough to cover, until they started running their commercials, on what a phoney ‘Hanoi’ John Kerry is/was, so what is the first thing the liberal media does they try to discredit the Swiftees, instead of researching the story they tried instead to destroy them( didn’t work). The same as the Kerry Kamp did, but when the truth be known it turns out that John Kerry is the liar.
The Liberal media certainly covered the Vietnam War, and every little movement of John kerry during his demostrations against the United States, but as soon as this two-bit phoney wants to run for President he magically becomes a War-hero. All this made up by the Main stream media.
Why wasn’t the Anal-exam given to all republican candidates, given to Kerry ? Why didn’t the main stream Liberal press not look into Hanoi Johns service record, why wasn’t it all released, he enlisted in 1965 and didn’t get an honorable discharge until 1978, duh there something wrong here and the press didn’t pick up on it. Why were all his medals RE-ISSUED in 1978, the main stream never picked up on that one either.
Reason ? because he had received from the United States Navy a less than honorable discharge, and it stayed that way until ‘Jimmy’ Carter signed the amnesty bill after his inauguaration,1978,( but this was really a favor to Ted Kennedy and not so much for the draft-dodgers) so that all the hippies that ran to Canada could come back home with out any responsibility for their actions against there country.
You talk about Fox being a right-wing media, at least they have the honesty to admit that they are fair and balanced, where your Liberal media only pretends to be balanced, big difference.
Mark
Keep 5 yards.
Comment by Mark — 01.11.05 @ 1:21 pm
No bias on CBS? I guess those three straight months of anti Bush books on 60 minutes before the election was just a coincidence? Yet CBS couldn’t find the time to interview the swift boat vets against Kerry? Or interview one of their own Bernie Goldberg?
Comment by ratso ferrari — 01.11.05 @ 2:01 pm
Heads roll at CBS
I think the NBC case precedent offers the more damning indictment of this delay. It ditched senior executive of the news division three weeks after a faked story that, while very dramatic and big on pyrotechnics, was of less national (and international…
Trackback by LimeyPundit — 01.11.05 @ 2:57 pm
DeJuan…I don’t “know” what I’m getting with FOX. Have you heard FOX come out and pronounce their conservatism? No…it’s all “fair and balanced” over there. So, if FOX can hide under BS slogans then I feel CBS can do the same.
I’m only asking for consistency in the arguments. If you all want CBS to wear a shameful “L” patch for liberal then FOX should be flying its conservative colors loud and proud, as well.
So…as far as I know I haven’t heard FOX come out and say “Hey, we’re promoting conservatism here.”
I think I know what happened with this story. Mapes et. al. perhaps may be liberal. I don’t think it would be fair for us to mischaracterize she and her former coworkers…in case they really aren’t. I feel perhaps they ran with what seemed like a sensationalist story that would bring them much attention. Less about some liberal scheme and more about some hope to break a totally “interesting,” so to speak, story. They got caught up in the moment and fouled up monumentally.
Remember…the media wasn’t exactly “liberal” during Clinton’s years.
I simply feel the media en masse often play devil’s advocate with the sitting president says and does. As a recent journalism graduate I feel the muckraking and watchdog aspects of our profession are extremely important. However, fact-checking and reliable sources are also as important.
Food for thought: if the media were so liberal why did they give Bush a pass during those hectic pre-war months?
Comment by Mike M. — 01.11.05 @ 4:47 pm
Mark,
Which HARD NEWS personality in the media has called Bush a liar and/or Hitler? If you can name me the name of a HARD NEWS anchor injecting his or her opinion into a piece of news then perhaps I’ll concede that network’s liberal bias.
However, I do agree with Baklava’s point that generally bias in the eyes and ears of the particular viewer.
I will maintain my opinion that on the issue of war the media were most definitely NOT liberal. Any news organization that was able to bend over and take what we now know to be falsified information on the run-up to war was most definitely NOT liberal on that issue.
Perhaps if the media had done they’re job and questioned the administration’s evidence we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in. Oh, wait! The Bush administration had the nerve to infer that those who question his “homeland security” tactics are unpatriotic, treasonous fools! Pardon the cynicism.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.11.05 @ 5:05 pm
They gave Bush a pass?
And Mapes had been working on the TANG angle since before Bush was elected the first time. That is hardly a rush.
If the entire timeline started in July or August, I could buy into that, but the TANG rumors were much older than that.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.11.05 @ 5:06 pm
Mike M.
It was evidence that was stated as fact by Dem’s like Kennedy, Gore, Kerry and Albright.
It was evidence that wasn’t made up by Bush as it was stated before Bush got to office in 2001.
Most of the weapons have been found here and there just not in the quantities of “stockpiles” and the oil-for-food/weapons program showed that Saddam was trying and trying and wasn’t going to give up.
What’s your point that we shouldn’t have removed him from power? Lib’s have no point except to bash Bush. Please tell us you’d rather have Saddam in power with the continuing addition to the mass graves and torture and rape rooms.
Comment by Baklava — 01.11.05 @ 5:27 pm
Baklava,
As idiotic as it may sound YES…I would rather have Saddam in power. You may not believe it but we have opened ourselves up to a huge amount of wrath by fundamentalists in the Middle East. Sure, Hussein is a thug who deserves his commeuppance…but do you really feel safer that he is now gone? I certainly don’t. The anger we’ve inflamed in that part of the world will wreck havoc on our way of life in the next half-century, in my opinion.
Conservative talking points on “rape and torture rooms” are about as old as my continual use of the “FOX News is evil and conservative” talking point.
The initial focus of the war was WMD…is that not correct? Saddam’s imminent threat to our way of life was why we went to war. We now know–and the president and vice president have admitted to some extent–that those weapons will not be found.
Now they say it’s for the Iraqis’ safety that we’re over there. If this war was first and foremost about our own well-being, what person in his right mind would believe that we are less-susceptible to attacks now that we’ve invaded and failed to successfully occupy a sovereign nation?
I for one am looking forward to the end of the month in hopes that we can transfer this doomed country to the Iraqis so that we can begin the process of bringing home our troops.
I don’t need an annoying little yellow magnet on my car to support our troops. Just bring them home from this disaster.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.11.05 @ 5:46 pm
Women raped in front of their husbands, children tortured in front of their parents, dismembered dissenters be damned, I guess.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.11.05 @ 5:56 pm
Mike M
Which hard news personality ? It was aired on all the networks it was not disavowed, it was not condemned, and allowed to continue. With no disclaimer that this is not necessarily the opinion of ABC See-BS samie-same as if they had said it.
So now we are back to the ‘Bush lied’ about Iraq again. What don’t you understand, the WMD, that Saddam was a threat to peace in the middle-east ?
But you mention the run up to war as if this was planned before 9-11 do remember that, do you remember what happened? 3000+ Americans and others including foreign nationals were killed by these despicable, gutless, Islamo-fascist. The same people that cut off heads and there is NO outcry from your side about these attrocities but the Abu Ghraib is an attrocity ?
You and your ilk have the nerve to equate these Terrorists to insurgents and to liken them to ‘Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys’, this is there version of the American Revolution ??
I have no respect for you liberals, neo-communists who want nothing more than to turn over to government our God given rights.
The way you do that is to undermine the effort of the United States in a war on terror that like it or not YOU are involved in and this sums up what the Main Stream Media is all about. This is what the Democrat party is all about.
Left wing blame America first,
My advice to you is try rooting for OUR side for a change.
After all the rights you have and enjoy were given to YOU because others put it on the line for the likes of you.
Mark
keep 5 yards
Comment by Mark — 01.11.05 @ 6:06 pm
Mark…when did Iraq become part and parcel of the War on Terror. As has now been debunked, Iraq proved no threat to us.
I’ll reply to your stream-of-consciousness post when I get a chance.
La Shawn,
I in no way was condoning Saddam’s action.
Take, for instance, a comment made by one of my former coworkers who happens to be a staunch conservative. It was purely sarcastic, but there is a touch of truth to what she said:
“You know who we need to get that country [Iraq] back in order? The one man who seems to have been able to keep things under control; Saddam Hussein.”
While I didn’t outright agree with her statement, I could see the humor in it. More than 100,000 Iraqis have been slaughtered since our little entree. Whether by our so-called “smart bombs” or thug insurgents wreaking havoc on the place. More than 1,000 of our troops killed. Sure, more talking points from my side of the aisle, but why can’t those of you on your side even consider these facts?
All I hear is the usual:
“Well, the Iraqis are free now.” Yeah, free to walk in the street and get shot in the head by some insurgent.
Perhaps I’m looking at this too simplistically. However, it certainly beats the convoluted bull the American people were shoveled in the months before the war.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.11.05 @ 6:27 pm
“As idiotic as it may sound YES…I would rather have Saddam in power. You may not believe it but we have opened ourselves up to a huge amount of wrath by fundamentalists in the Middle East.”
Gosh, you’re right. Now that they’re mad at us, they might hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Comment by Laura — 01.11.05 @ 6:54 pm
OK, Laura…perhaps I should edit my sentence.
“You may not believe it but we have opened ourselves up to even more wrath by fundamentalists in the Middle East.”
You can not honestly believe that we, as a country, are safer because of our Iraq incursion. Just look at the amount of insurgent attacks in the last month alone. Last I checked, our soldiers were part of our nation.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.11.05 @ 8:43 pm
And by taking out their havens in Afghanistan and Iraq, and putting some fear into the regimes of Iran, Syria and the house of Saud, the US is cutting into their ability take their strugle out of the middle east.
And successful democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan will be better to American interests, as well as those of world at large, than allowing the Taliban or Hussein incorpated to continue running the shows.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.11.05 @ 9:11 pm
It’s called disagreement Mike.
You think it’s not part of the war on terror. We happen to think it is. Nobody can really be said to be wrong or right on this one. There are pro’s and con’s.
Pro’s:
1) Bringing up 2 democracies in the heart of the middle east in adjacent countries to Iran and Syria.
2) Changing 2 countries who were bent on obtaining the means necessary to kill as many infidels into countries that have the people decide things.
3) Bringing 24 million women in 2 countries the ability to learn and vote and participate in the work force
4) Bringing to an end rape/torture rooms and mass graves. Yes in any struggle for freedom there is blood shed. But the argument you pose Mike almost sounds like you were against the Revolutionary War.
Cons:
1) We have sacrificed heavily. But there has been 3 week periods in Vietnam and few day periods in WWII where we have sacrificed more of our people.
In any struggle there will be a sacrifice but it can’t be the only reason to not be in a struggle. We have to look at the pros and cons. We have to think ahead.
And to say that all reporting on the war in Iraq should what be talked about in terms of us leaving shows how biased you are. Reporting should be about facts and what is happening and not an advocation of an opinion.
If you want it to be said everytime that Bush lied to get us in Iraq you would want for an opinon that is incorrect to be reported.
Because…. I’ll repeat….
1) Bush said the same thing that every intelligence agency in the world said (French, German, Russian, British, U.S.) - were they all lying (and before Bush got into office)
2) Bush was saying the same thing that Democrats were saying (Kerry, Albright, Gore, Clinton) and even before Bush got into office
3) 90% of stated weapons have been found just not in the quantity of “stockpiles”.
So to state that Bush lied is to state that he had the intention to misinform us with information that wasn’t being stated anywhere else and that everyone knew at the time was incorrect.
It could be said that EVERYBODY was off the mark (intelligence agencies and Democrat politicians and Bush). But that is not what you Mike think and what you Mike want to be reported.
Comment by Baklava — 01.11.05 @ 9:59 pm
Mike M..The death mantra has played out.
It’s people like you that enbolden the terrorists and killers in Iraq. Why do I say this? If our military had the luxury of really clamping down Iraq the way they really should to ensure the soldiers safety, you would be the first one to cry about our “brutality”. This is not an exaggeration. Case in point:
The terrorists chop off heads of civilians, Liberals are silent.
A couple of soldiers are on trial for placing panties on head on some naked prisoners. Liberals cheer.
The terrorists are killing more Iraqis at rate higher than they are killing US soldiers. Liberals are silent.
Your comments reveal a basic misunderstanding common to most liberals. Please allow me to clarify this..
The people we are fighting against don’t like you, never did like you and never will like.
And yes, the US is safer because you may not have realized this, but the fighting is over there. Sometimes I feel that if the fighting was over here, it would wake some of you up concerning your loyalties. I feel sympathy and gratitude for the soldiers that are fighting to protect us but I am sure, just like me, they love their families too much to fight those people over here.
Comment by Dejuan — 01.11.05 @ 10:33 pm
MSNBC is polling readers with this question “Do you believe there was political bias in the CBS report on Pres. Bush’s Natl. Guard service?”
Results so far are YES 58% NO 42%. You can vote too at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/
Comment by Jim R — 01.12.05 @ 8:34 am
And I’m sure somebody over at DailyKos will have a script hack posted sometime today to allow folks to vote “No” an unlimited # of times.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.12.05 @ 9:22 am
LaShawn Shouts!
I feel almost famous, a mini LaShawnLanche.
Thanks LaShawn!
…
Trackback by Myopic Zeal — 01.12.05 @ 1:46 pm
Dejuan,
Your crazy generalizations don’t even merit a proper response. And yours is an attitude I’ve frankly come to accept from many within the conservative base.
The reason I’ve enjoyed La Shawn’s blog is that she doesn’t stoop to such common generalizations. Generalizations on both sides are dangerous and I’ll admit I’ve made a few.
However, your saying that liberals stay silent when someone is beheaded is idiotic. Liberals cheering that justice is brought to some thug military men who think they own the power of law in their own hands is a huge overstatement.
Don’t misappropriate what we liberals do and feel. You have no idea.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.12.05 @ 3:49 pm
Baklava said:
“And to say that all reporting on the war in Iraq should what be talked about in terms of us leaving shows how biased you are. Reporting should be about facts and what is happening and not an advocation of an opinion.”
Perhaps if journalists had done some “fact-checking” on Bush’s BS…
Oh well, I’ll shut up.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.12.05 @ 3:50 pm
La Shawn -
I respect your apparent willingness to give Mike M. an ongoing hearing - but speaking for myself, I have been about as entertained by him as I am ever likely to be.
He does not seem to be adding anything substantive to the discussion. There are many valid criticisms to be made of the current administration - but Mike is not the one making them.
You are a voice - Mike M. is just an echo. I don’t ask that you ban him, but I would suggest that you and your readers not feed the trolls…
Comment by Parker — 01.12.05 @ 4:26 pm
Parker, you must be new to the board. Mike is not a troll, and I don’t usually follow “banning” advice, implied or otherwise, from other commenters.
Comment by LB — 01.12.05 @ 4:29 pm
Mike M:
If I have to spell it out to you why we are in Iraq then you are beyond help,..briefly, the Islamo-fascist have declared war on the West especially the United States, if you think by appeasement is the way to handle these people, then you have indeed forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001, then you are sadly mistaken, but then again you probably supported Clinton when he bombed an aspirin factory in Iraq and killed a custodian.
Obviously you are unable to or do not want to connect the ‘dots’ and liberals of this sort are OUR worst enemy.
Mark
Comment by Mark — 01.12.05 @ 6:14 pm
Mike M. wrote, “Perhaps if journalists had done some “fact-checking” on Bush’s BS…”
Mike please read my earlier posts. It would not be Bush’s BS, it would be everybody’s BS. You try to pin it only on Bush when most were saying the same thing before Bush got into office. That is where your Bush hatred shows through and through. Read the words I stated earlier and match up what you are saying to them and everyone else who reads here who has logic can see that you are pinning Bush as a liar when he was stating what every intelligence agency in the world and top Democrats were saying and EVEN before Bush came into office.
Comment by Baklava — 01.12.05 @ 8:07 pm
Mark…if liberals like me are your worst enemy, what about those that murdered 3,000 of our fellow citizens more than three years ago?
I’d like to think you’d place me higher on the food chain than those monsters.
Re: the Clinton comment. No, I try to be somewhat consistent in my thoughts. I was totally disgusted at Clinton’s bombing campaign several years ago. Even I can admit his “Wag the Dog” tactic to shift the news from his presidential peccadillo to the bombing of an aspirin factory was deliberately offensive.
Now…on to your point.
Mark, you continue to assert that liberals as a whole are not interested in pursuing the threat that remains in the ideals of Islamo-fascism. This is where many on the right continue to miss the point in interpreting liberal ideology.
Liberals stand with all Americans in demanding that THOSE INVOLVED IN 9/11 and THOSE WHO WANT TO KILL US are swiftly brought to justice.
Unfortunately, EVIDENCE NOW and EVIDENCE THEN shows that Iraq was in no way harboring ANY threat to our nation. If Clinton had gone to war in 1998, then I would have been all over him (although you may say it’s unfair of me to say that now…which would be a valid point for you to make). All I know is what I see and read. Conservatives came into this administration with war on their minds. Look no further than the Project for the New American Century website, an organization that was SWARMING with neo-cons (Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Wolfie and Rummy, Dick Armitage, Jim Woolsey) who wanted to see war with Iraq.
If conservatives’ pretext for going to war in Iraq was to guarantee our safety, I feel they’ve been duped. This is my personal opinion. I don’t feel any safer now that our arrogance in Iraq has bred ten times as many terrorists as there were before the war.
I’m sure many Iraqis hated our guts pre-war. Unfortuantely, that mere hate has now brought ACTION against our citizens, be they military or civilian.
Now, Afghanistan is a totally separate subject. I’d like to see more action in that country. I’d speak more of it, but I feel I’m straying too far off topic.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.12.05 @ 10:15 pm
Mike M wrote, “Conservatives came into this administration with war on their minds.”
Untrue Mike. Bush was not talking about this and the populace wouldn’t have been behind it. Before 9/11 there was no will to go into Afghanistan or Iraq no matter how many “thinkers” that you point out wanted to go to war. I doubt these sources anyway without even checking out your URL because I watch C-SPAN and listened to Rumsfeld, Bill Bennet before 9/11. Liberals can’t just make things up anymore..
Please address this question:
Why do liberals keep asserting/implying that Iraq has been a diversion away from Afghanistan when General Tommy Franks has set the record straight over and over saying that after the start of Iraq that we increased military presence in Afghanistan.
It’s ok to be against going into Iraq mike. What does liberals a disservice is when they call Bush/America arrogant or assert that Bush lied.
If you see my earlier posts (you haven’t addressed them) you can see that to call Bush a liar on this topic would mean that you have to be asserting that the French, German, Russian, British, and U.S. Intelligence agencies were lying and that top Democrats like Kerry, Clinton, Albright and Gore were lying (and even before Bush came into office).
The fact that EVERYBODY was off the mark when they said the word “stockpiles” and we haven’t found “stockpiles” but we’ve found bits and pieces of evidence of 90% of what was asserted means just that - that EVERYBODY was off the mark.
Now you have pros and cons for going into Iraq. You didn’t address that either. I see more benefit. You don’t. That’s called a disagreement. It is not however the case that we are WRONG or arrogant.
Comment by Baklava — 01.13.05 @ 4:22 pm
Baklava,
Perhaps Bush didn’t have war on his mind, but the neo-cons he implanted into his cabinet most certainly did. Have you not check out Project for a New American Century like I said? Check out the section on Iraq/Middle East.
Simply fascinating stuff.
I’m surprised Rummy and Co. didn’t remove the site. What could be their purpose for keeping it up?
Comment by Mike M. — 01.13.05 @ 4:29 pm
Posters at FreeRepublic.com outed the fake documents within minutes of the story.
The “blog world” should quit patting themselves on the back long enough to give them credit.
Comment by Don — 01.18.05 @ 10:37 am
I guess you missed the link to my NRO story, where I give them more credit than others have.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.18.05 @ 11:03 am
No I didn’t miss it , seeing you are the center of my blog world. LOL
The list is long of those that now overlook it.
Comment by Don — 01.19.05 @ 9:06 am
Fake but accurate may apply to the Rathergate report. As of 1/24 zero employees have been fired.Rathergate never stops puting out lies.
Comment by Rod Stanton — 01.24.05 @ 7:42 am
I thought Mapes was out, but the other 3 were still in place. Talking to their legal beagles and all.
Is Mapes still showing up to work?
I hear the DNC is looking for a new chair…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.24.05 @ 7:53 am