QandO
Questions and Observations| « The Persistant Myth of the Stolen Election | Main | True or election year politics? » |
|
September 17, 2004 Curmudgeon conceeds CBS wrong Per the NY Daily News, even CBS fixture Andy Rooney thinks the documents are fakes: CBS curmudgeon Andy Rooney indicated yesterday he believes the controversial documents on President Bush's National Guard service are fake and said it could cost Dan Rather down the road. Kind of begs the question of whether a 'good honest, newsman' would continue to perpetuate a fraud, dosen't it? Rooney doesn't think the network would try to ease out Rather over the memo mess, but he added, "It might have an effect on him six months from now." But what about the effect it will have, overall, on CBS? Is allowing Dan Rather to continue to stonewall worth the price to CBS in ratings and credibility?
Which is easily remedied by looking outside CBS. I still ask, how long can CBS let this obvious fraud of a story continue without specifically addressing the challenges to the authenticity of the documents which have been raised? How long can it continue without at least ordering an internal investigation? |
This has been beaten to death already...I heard a decent counterpoint today...that the whole mess is diverting attention away from what is important, and that is what is happening in Iraq.
There is recent news of a "pessimistic" outlook for Iraq's future, which may include civil wars, and billions more $ and many more American lives lost. I have heard very little positive news there.
Posted by: Mr. K at September 17, 2004 03:10 PM
''good honest, newsman' '
The suspects mother said 'He is a good boy'
Posted by: Jack Tanner at September 17, 2004 03:23 PM
I'd simply point out that its an assessment (Iraq) which is based on many, many variables and assumptions which may or may not be true and may or may not come true.
If you've ever read many intel assessments, and I have, you learn quickly that the analyist will always assmue the worst. Its useful mostly for looking at a worst case "what if" and making what plans and contingencies you can in case that 'what if' might come to pass.
But mostly you take it as a part of the picture you, as the commander on the ground, have to consider when planning and making decisions. We're deprived of the persepctive of commanders on the ground in Iraq, so we only see hear the doom and gloom part of it all.
If the news put every intel assessment in the paper that was ever put together, you'd come up with one of two conclusions. A) we're all going to die, very soon and very horribly or B) these guys see spooks in everything going on and are rarely right. In my experience, B is usually the case.
Don't get too wrapped up in intel assessments, Mr. K. They're simply a snap-shot of a point in time and based on assumptions, trends and conjecture tied together with intel from the dubious to the solid from which the "future" is supposedly extrapolated. If any of the assumptions or intel is wrong, so is the assessment. History tells us the chances of all of it being true are almost nil.
Based on our intel track record to this point, I'm not putting too much creedence in the "future" of Iraq as outlined in an intel assessment.
Posted by: McQ at September 17, 2004 03:28 PM
final nail?
Walter Staudt has finally come out and said the BS is definitely in CBS.
no influence, period.
Posted by: capt joe at September 17, 2004 04:25 PM
How long?
My, my.
How long did they manage to float Bill Clinton?
Posted by: Bithead at September 17, 2004 05:18 PM
Bad news for CBS. If the ultimate fool (Rooney) can see that these documents are fake (and matter because they are fake) CBS has major problems.
Posted by: themarkman at September 17, 2004 06:15 PM
Ouch. The Last Angry Liberal wants 'em to 'fess up and move on. Gotta hurt.
Posted by: Jumbo at September 17, 2004 06:41 PM