pageok
pageok
pageok
CNN Digs Itself in Deeper:

CNN has restored the video discussed here yesterday to its website, and has published a response by the local stringers who took the video denying accusations that the video is fraudulent. There is no specific response to the main claim of fraud that has arisen, which is that the doctors who are allegedly trying to resuscitate the boy on camera are pantomiming it but not actually doing it. Nor is there any discussion of the critique raised here (and later also raised by Ed Morrisey), which is that the cameraman who shot the video claims that his brother was killed on the roof of his apartment building by an Israeli missile shot from a plane, yet the roof, shown in the video, shows no sign of the sort of damage that such a missile would cause. Indeed, not only is there no crater in the roof, but lawn furniture and clothes hanging out to dry on a line are right there in the background, undisturbed. Given that CNN's own staff can't vouch for the video first-hand, and that very serious questions have been raised about its credibility, I don't see why CNN would want to double-down on this one.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. CNN Digs Itself in Deeper:
  2. Fraudulent CNN Video:
John (mail):
"...I don't see why CNN would want to double-down on this one."

Really? How about, it advances its anti-Israel agenda and enhances its revenue stream in those areas sharing this view.
1.10.2009 2:58pm
Michael B (mail):
CNN International is worse still, a concupiscence of intellectual and moral dissolution, yet they remain supremely self-satisfied, even self-admiring.
1.10.2009 3:08pm
fortyninerdweet (mail):
Why wouldn't they? The piece is not intended for pro-western eyes. After all, how many of those still watch the fools? Their core audience is the third world and per John's comments above its good for their agenda and brings in more money. Win-win for the Communist News Network.
1.10.2009 3:11pm
Federal Dog:
They are pathological liars dedicated to helping destroy Jews. There can be no doubt that their conduct is intentional fraud designed to damage people whose ethnicity they hate.
1.10.2009 3:22pm
gran habano:
Was it CNN who photoshopped those cityscape panoramas during the Israeli move into Lebanon a few years ago, adding faux smoke to the pictures to amplify the "devastation"?
1.10.2009 3:28pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
One of the problems with the video is that the doctor on it (Mads Gilbert) is not the most credible of sources. He has previously advocated doctors in conflicts taking active sides, and the like. Unfortunately, most news organizations seem to be unaware of his advocacy, so I am willing to pardon CNN's mistake.

My guess is that Israel let Mads in as part of a deal with the Norwegian government (which was involved in boycotts of Israel during Operation Defensive Shield). He does not work for the ICRC, but rather for a Norwegian governmental human rights group (not really an NGO).

What I can't understand is why Israel would rationally let Mads in and yet try to keep reputable ICRC war surgeons out.
1.10.2009 3:30pm
Patrick S. O'Donnell (mail) (www):
1.10.2009 3:32pm
Boonton (mail) (www):
No response? The article says:

"Responding to accusations that the resuscitation efforts of Mashharawi's brother appeared inauthentic, Martin said that, based on his years of reporting from Gaza, doctors often go through such efforts even with little hope that a patient can be saved."
1.10.2009 3:32pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
I wrote:

What I can't understand is why Israel would rationally let Mads in and yet try to keep reputable ICRC war surgeons out.


Another poster had previously noted that Israel's complete incompetence when it comes to propaganda goes a long way in dispelling unpleasant stereotypes of Jews. This is probably the foremost example. After all, I can't think of anything that can look worse than letting someone like Mads in to make films like this and keeping the ICRC team out.
1.10.2009 3:32pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
I wrote:

This is probably the foremost example. After all, I can't think of anything that can look worse than letting someone like Mads in to make films like this and keeping the ICRC team out.


I take that back. Patrick S O'Donnel's link definitely looks even worse. Where does the IDF find their PR department?
1.10.2009 3:35pm
Kevin!:
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the boys are dead, right? Are Bernstein &Co. saying that something else killed them? As in, something non-IDF?
1.10.2009 3:50pm
Patrick216:
All I know is, Israel better not allow itself to be distracted by these Hamas and Hizbollah guys too much. They have a much bigger fish to fry -- Iran. And if Iran goes nuclear, all I can say is that the world's Jews better work out a plan to evac all 4 million Israeli Jews and to do it fast.
1.10.2009 3:50pm
Michael B (mail):
It's Israel's fault for allowing Mads Gilbert into Gaza!?!? Good grief, those Joooos are responsible for everything!

It's also similar to this type of B.S., excerpt:

"The family suddenly notices the cameras, and immediately, the expression on their faces changes. "We have no food," they say in Arabic, as one of the youngsters suggests we interview him in English about their plight. Givati troops are extremely concerned about being portrayed as abusing innocent civilians. Perry points to a stack of canned goods, water bottles and other provisions. "We provided some of that and they cook and eat quite well," he said. The Palestinians seem to understand him and one of them smiles. It's a war -- they had to try..."

The PR/propaganda war continues - and useful fools happily align themselves with the b.s., unable to smell a solitary whiff of it ...
1.10.2009 3:53pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Michael B:

If Israel is going to keep out ICRC war surgeons, but not care about someone like Mads, that is their fault. I am objecting to a specific double-standard here where reputable war surgeons are kept out and less politically neutral ones are let in.
1.10.2009 3:55pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
(if they let all war surgeons in from international medical organizations, this wouldn't be a problem. Once they take ownership of the control and start keeping ICRC doctors out, they better take ownership for which ones they don't keep out.)
1.10.2009 3:57pm
Michael B (mail):
Kevin!,

You're wrong, it has not been confirmed whether or not he's dead or alive, that fact itself remains unresolved.

Similar to the Muhammed al Durah blood libel. Did you ever voice concern or outrage over the veracity of that particularly onerous libel? That libel was used, in part, to justify Daniel Pearl's beheading - though that is merely the tip of the tip of the iceberg of all it was used to justify.

And while you consider how much umbrage you expressed as pertains to the al Durah blood libel, perhaps you could also tell us how much you've concerned yourself with the rockets and mortars Hamas has launched into Israeli civilian populations since 2001/2002. Witness this brief youTube video for example: 15 Seconds in Sderot.
1.10.2009 4:05pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
In case, I am misunderstood, I am not saying this fake is Israel's fault. What I am saying is that if Israel is going to keep ICRC war surgeon teams out who have a history of neutrality in conflict, and at the same time let someone in who has criticized Doctors Without Borders for not taking sides in conflicts, then you can't treat them simply as an innocent victim of the propaganda effort because their own actions make things substantially worse.

I personally think Mads should have been removed from his post a long time ago. Shame on the Norwegian Gov't for not doing so. However, when he is let in and the ICRC team is not, then I have to question the competence of the people in Israel making these decisions. I think they are shown to be as incompetent in this matter as CNN is.
1.10.2009 4:06pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
(The Israelis making these decisions are sufficiently incompetent that Israel would be better if their positions and roles were eliminated.)
1.10.2009 4:09pm
Cornellian (mail):
CNN is being objective at least in the sense that word has acquired in
contemporary journalism. In their minds, when someone says the video is
fake, being objective means not figuring out whether the video is fake,
but rather putting someone on who claims the video isn't fake. Having
reported both viewpoints, CNN is thus being objective. It's pretty much
a complete abdication of the proper role of a journalist, but that's
hardly exclusive to CNN, or to this issue.
1.10.2009 4:11pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Patrick O'Donnell, the fact that you take at face value anything that UNRWA spokesmen say about the conflict suggests that you don't know anything about UNRWA.

But if you actually read the story carefully, there's nothing to it in any event. You find out that UNRWA admits that the facility was taken over by militants. "There are no up-to-date photos," Gunness said. "In 2007, we abandoned the site and only then did the militants take it over." If the facility was indeed under the control of Hamas "militants," then it was a legitimate military target. Couple that with reports from local Gazans that Hamas was firing from around the facility, and you got nothing.
1.10.2009 4:36pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):

Patrick O'Donnell, the fact that you take at face value anything that UNRWA spokesmen say about the conflict suggests that you don't know anything about UNRWA.


I don't see why it is fundamentally worse than any other form of single-sourcing such as taking the IDF statements uncritically.....
1.10.2009 4:39pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
(or at least single-sourcing from biased sources, like the IDF. I think less-biased sources like the ICRC are better.)
1.10.2009 4:40pm
PC:
They are pathological liars dedicated to helping destroy Jews. There can be no doubt that their conduct is intentional fraud designed to damage people whose ethnicity they hate.

I'm not sure if this goes far enough. CNN is trying to create a second holocaust. CNN has resurrected Hitler's corpse and zombie Hitler is now the secret CEO of CNN. There is no lie too bold, no hate too venomous to spew.

I also have it on good authority that Wolf Blitzer is actually Adolf Eichmann in disguise.
1.10.2009 4:49pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Responding to accusations that the resuscitation efforts of Mashharawi's brother appeared inauthentic, Martin said that, based on his years of reporting from Gaza, doctors often go through such efforts even with little hope that a patient can be saved."

CNN uses a stringer as a medical reference on CPR? With all the hospitals in the US, all the medical schools, all the emergency rooms, all the board certified emergency doctors and cardiologists, and with Dr. Sanjay Gupta down the hall, they choose to use a stringer as an authority?
1.10.2009 4:54pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
No response? The article says:

"Responding to accusations that the resuscitation efforts of Mashharawi's brother appeared inauthentic, Martin said that, based on his years of reporting from Gaza, doctors often go through such efforts even with little hope that a patient can be saved."
That would be a response to an accusation that the patient was already dead, so why were they trying to do CPR on him. That's not the accusation. The accusation is that they weren't really doing CPR at all.
1.10.2009 4:58pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Patrick O'Donnell, the fact that you take at face value anything that UNRWA spokesmen say about the conflict suggests that you don't know anything about UNRWA.
I don't see why it is fundamentally worse than any other form of single-sourcing such as taking the IDF statements uncritically.....
Because UNRWA has a history of lying? Because the IDF is subject to investigation by a skeptical world and local media, but UNRWA does and says whatever it wants without any consequences?
1.10.2009 5:00pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Prof Bernstein:

You have to admit the IDF does not have the best record in terms of investigations into such incidents. I won't take the UNRWA word for things either, but other UN organizations and the ICRC tend to be much more balanced. In general, the general rule is that if someone is deeply invested in one side of the conflict or the civilian population on one side, they are not a reliable source of first-hand information.
1.10.2009 5:04pm
D.R.M.:
Kevin!, actually, the bad pantomime of CPR is itself evidence that the boy is alive and healthy at the time of the video.

A competent doctor knows how to perform CPR for real, and if the boy has "little hope" there's no reason not to perform it correctly; it might actually save the life anyway. Only an unethical doctor with no interest in lifesaving would not perform proper CPR as long as any hope remained, and would normally continue even for a while after (rational) hope was gone. He might stop to attend another patient who is more likely to be saved, but he wouldn't waste time doing CPR blatantly wrong. (Boonton, this is why the CNN explanation is a non sequitur.)

Similarly, if he were faking CPR on a corpse for propaganda purposes, there's no reason for him not to do CPR correctly, in order that the video be convincing. If that boy is a corpse being used in a prop, the only conclusion is that Gilbert is incompetent as a physician, unable to do proper CPR.

But, CPR is dangerous, even potentially deadly, when performed on someone who is alive and whose heart if functioning correctly. A doctor who would perform real CPR on someone whom it could injure or kill simply for propaganda purposes would be a truly vile person. Instead, the CPR would be done incorrectly in order to avoid injury to a living boy.

So, the conclusion here that best matches an assumption that Gilbert is a competent and ethical physician is that the boy was alive and the film was a fake.
1.10.2009 5:16pm
Bad English:
The only thing that is surprising about this -- and amusing, albeit in a dispiriting way -- is that there seems to be some people who actually think CNN can be trusted to relate accurate, reliable information about current events.
1.10.2009 5:23pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
You have to admit the IDF does not have the best record in terms of investigations into such incidents.
Let's avoid further back and forth on that. I've done a bit more investigating. Israel's investigation concluded that Hamas fighters were firing from around the UN school. The IDF returned fire, which set off secondary explosions at the school. The first point is well established, from both Israeli sources and also Palestinian witnesses quoted by the AP and others. Israel clearly also fired back. The remaining question, then, is whether the deaths inside the school were due to Israel (1) purposely firing at the school because they knew Hamas was using it as a base, which Israel now denies; (2)from secondary explosions from stored munitions, Israel's story; or (3) Israel accidentally hitting the school while aiming at those firing weapons at the soldiers. Whether or not Israel's investigation is correct, none of these three options strike me as scandalous, much less a "war crime," as UNRWA has, not surprisingly given its nature, suggested. Of course, Prof. Heller raises (and presumptively, but only presumptively, rejects) the fourth possibility at Opinio Juris that Israel purposely targeted the building to revenge itself on the U.N., but that's quite a charge to make in the absence of any evidence.
1.10.2009 5:25pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Bad English:

Having spent a fair bit of time abroad, I have generally found CNN to be reasonably worthless (though occasionally they do have some useful info). The BBC and its spinoffs though have been much better in general.
1.10.2009 5:25pm
Michael B (mail):
Recently up at that InstaGuy's place: It's the Fault of the Jooooos, with photos, excerpt, with emphases:

"Most of the United Nations -- and Islamists around the world -- blame Middle East unrest on "the Zionists". This assertion is even more ludicrous than most of their other statements. Consider:"

[...]

"In Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities around the U.S., Muslim protesters chanted "Jews to the ovens", "Long Live Hitler", "Slaughter the Jews", "We will cleanse you, Palestine" and other epithets advocating genocide. It was the Zionists's fault."

[...]

"In the Sudan, 300,000 have died as Muslims attacked Christians and Animists. It was the Zionists' fault.

"In Mumbai India, a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists killed or wounded 500 people in 2008. It was the Zionists' fault."

[...]

"For decades, Palestinian and Iranian children's television shows and textbooks have taught hatred of Christians and Jews; suicide bombing; killing; and destruction. This is the Zionists' fault.

"Since 2001, Islamic terrorists have carried out more than 11,188 separate attacks on Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, women and others. These attacks were the Zionists' fault."

Priorities.

Further and critically, a pandemic of vicious, venomous, malevolent anti-Jewish hatred is manifesting itself around the planet, in European urban locals, in South America, in Muslim capitals and urban areas, elsewhere. Defining choices. Priorities.

And more concerning the UNRWA, very possibly the single most corrupt org within the U.N., and that's saying a great deal:

Accusation First, Investigation Later
1.10.2009 5:26pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Prof Bernstein:

Ok, assuming you are correct, then I would expect an IDF statement contradicting the UNRWA statement at least as to what was communicated to the UNRWA. Let's see what develops over 24 hours.

Certainly if the IDF lets the matter stand, they allow the UNRWA to be seen as correctly representing their statements to the organization.
1.10.2009 5:29pm
John A (mail):

"Responding to accusations that the resuscitation efforts of Mashharawi's brother appeared inauthentic, Martin said that, based on his years of reporting from Gaza, doctors often go through such efforts even with little hope that a patient can be saved."


Well, yes, doctors do CPR even when they do not give it much more than a five percent chance of being successful - this is done world-wide, not just in Gaza. But such efforts include using such force as to break ribs, not so little as to not risk bruising. And breathing-enhancement is also used, whether mouth-to-mouth when nothing else is mmediately available, or using tube-and-bag such as the apparatus seen at the head of the table.
1.10.2009 5:34pm
Public_Defender (mail):
By keeping reporters who are willing to risk a war zone out of the war zone, Israel is shooting itself in the foot. The only people who can report are the people who live there. When you leave the reporting grunt work to the most biased people available, the coverage will be biased. Plus, when Israel makes reporters mad by denying them access (especially here when the Israeli Supreme Court said that Israeli law allowed the reporters to be there), Israel makes the networks less likely to worry about bias. After all, the network leaders may say, it's not their choice to leave the reporting the Gaza locals, it's Israel's choice.

For the most part, the more facts about this fight that become available, the better (or at least, the less bad) Israel looks. Keeping unbiased (or at least less biased) reporters out appears to have been a boneheaded idea.
1.10.2009 6:01pm
smitty1e:
They're just laying the foundation for hiring Dan Rather.
1.10.2009 6:24pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Public_Defender:

especially here when the Israeli Supreme Court said that Israeli law allowed the reporters to be there


People who complain about the UN being irrelevant should realize that it is far more important and effective than the Israeli Supreme Court, whom pretty much nobody pays attention to.
1.10.2009 6:31pm
SecurityGeek:
Thank God the right-wing blogosphere found another questionable news report from a war zone that magically makes collateral damage go away. Many people were worried about this one-sided war making it more difficult for Israel and the Arabs to eventually come to terms, or thought that America would eventually pay the blowback price for Israel's actions. Obviously those people were wrong, and all of those hundreds of civilian causalities are all fakes.

I'm glad that's over. Maybe the LGF guys can find a propaganda report about Darfur or the Congo and save *millions* of lives!
1.10.2009 6:37pm
Sarcastro (www):
Only Rush can tell me what reality is doing. Anything else is lies, and probably Hitlerian.

Case in point, CNN whose every move is to advance their Godless, Communist, Muslim, antisemetic, Stalinist, Orwellian, Satanic, Lenninist, Nazi, Gay agenda.
1.10.2009 6:50pm
Spitzer:
Honestly, the press is just another kind of weapon that warring parties use to achieve their goals. Just as competent coups begin with seizing control of the local radio and TV stations, so too are the palestinians smart to use the press to defeat the Israelis.

So I don't blame the palestinians for that - they are just using proven means of winning wars. (I do, for the record, blame them for terrorism, for shooting rockets at defenseless civilians, and for using their own civilians as human shields).

But of course I can blame the press. They are more than willing to partner with the palestinians on this. Anti-semitism? Probably some. Probably more in the minds of many in the press, however, is a de facto anti-democracy bias in this sort of reporting -- that is, they want to affect the conduct and outcome of wars (it's fun, it wins them prizes and professional esteem, and it makes them feel generally better about themselves). The anti-democracy bias that derives from this is simple: dictatorships control the press (often violently), while democracies have a free press. This means two essential things, from the press' perspective: (1) cowardice--they are much less likely to suffer negative consequences personally if their reporting favors the dictators because the democracies won't punish them and the dictators won't punish them if they give favorable reports (this is linked to the growing leftist-Islamist alliance); (2) ego--they are much more likely to influence the actions of free nations than of dictatorships because democracies respond (often) to public pressure, while dictators simply kill their enemies when they cannot kill or cow them.

If there is any fault on Israel's part, it's that they are a democracy and they respect the freedom of the press. If the Israelis would just start controlling the press (intimidating them, maybe torturing and killing a few for good measure, maybe hunting down a few in their home offices and killing them and their families), and if they would just stop having elections (so the reporting would have no internal consequences for the Israelis), I strongly suspect that the anti-Israeli bias in the reports would dissipate substantially.

Moral of the story? Dictatorship wins (in MSM's eyes)!
1.10.2009 6:50pm
Mac (mail):
Doctors may "go through such efforts even when the patient can't be saved" but doing CPR in that fashion is not too darn likely to save anyone.

Did you happen to notice that no one was bagging the child with an ambu bag and providing oxygen with the extremely ineffective and incorrect compressions? Never heard of nor seen that happen in a hospital during a CPR event.

Strange, no?
1.10.2009 6:52pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Spitzer:

My guess is that the report was manufactured with the help and consent of Mads Gilbert, given his past criticisms of Doctors without Borders (suggesting that they were too neutral in conflicts). The issue becomes as much about the role of humanitarian groups in Gaza as it does about the Press's complicity with the Palestinians (because the press is getting the reports from ostensibly humanitarian organizations from Europe).

If you think about it, if you are a journalist and you get a video like this from a European human rights organization, are you going to assume it is Palestinian propaganda? Probably not. I think this needs to be born in mind regarding CNN's error.

The only area where I see Israeli fault here is in making it hard for the ICRC to bring in war surgeons when they have a good record of not pulling stunts like this while at the same time letting in someone who clearly wants to use his humanitarian work as a soapbox for propaganda. If the ICRC team had been allowed in without delay, I would have said that it was the cost of Israel fulfilling their obligations and they were just a victim here, but since they did delay more reputable doctors, I have a hard time saying that.

At very least, Israel is a victim of the incompetence of the people who they obviously hire to decide which humanitarian physicians get in to Gaza (so much so, that Israel would be better off putting these folks on paid leave for the rest of the conflict). To another extent, they are the victim of Norway's reluctance to dismiss Mads Gilbert from his post over comments he has made to the press, but when Israel assumes control over which international medical organizations can send doctors into Gaza, they become responsible for such mistakes here when there was adequate information to know better.

What all parties need to do at once is:

1) Norway needs to dismiss Mads Gilbert.

2) CNN needs to provide transparency as to where they got the recording.

3) Israel needs to move more quickly in ensuring ICRC personnel are allowed into Gaza

Hope this helps.
1.10.2009 7:04pm
gran habano:
Sarcastro,

The bitter, reductionist Daily Show schtick is rarely funny even when Stewart does it. Do you have any good material?
1.10.2009 7:07pm
TokyoTom (mail):
I love this, David. It`s always more important, in the midst of obviously destructive and bloody military action by Israel, when Israel itself illegally prohibits access by foreign press, to do one`s best to criticize all other information.

Even if it`s only "truthy", isn`t your real object to deny all of the deaths, injuries and destruction?
1.10.2009 7:22pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
TokyoTom:

Even if it`s only "truthy", isn`t your real object to deny all of the deaths, injuries and destruction?


Prof Bernstein has always said he regretted the deaths of civilians in Gaza. Now, whether making the deaths personal is objectionable is another question which I will let him answer.
1.10.2009 7:25pm
Smorgasbord (mail):
CNN went along with Rathergate for quite a while before even CBS admitted the documents couldn't be verified. I don't think they went so far as to admit they were fake, but they could have.
1.10.2009 7:42pm
whit:
i remember when watching M*A*S*H that they performed "TV CPR". to anybody who has actually performed CPR (done it several times myself), it's laughably fake. but that's a relatively small group. to most people, they don't bat an eyelid.

It is correct, that CPR, when done correctly can result in cracked ribs, etc. (moreso in the elderly though), and that there is no reason to perform such "fake CPR" on a dead person, but reason to perform it on a live on.

what's frigging sad, but typical in the modern media is that blatantly fake CPR wasn't recognized by a single fact checker before the thing was aired/placed on their website.

and of course this is especially true when it advances the biased media's version of events (that israel is the oppressor and the palestinians are "victims".)

very little fact checking questioning will go on when an ideologue is presented with something that advances their "narrative". we saw it with the obvious fake in the rather/mapes story. we see it all the time.

but it's just frigging amazing. CPR is not exactly a rare procedure. that a NEWS organization could air a video of obviously fake CPR without noticing that it was obviously fake is frigging incredibly damning as to their shoddy reportership (is that a word).

again, too much hawkeye pierce worship and not enough fact checking and skepticism.
1.10.2009 8:09pm
Humble Law Student (mail) (www):
Oh the fun times at opiniojuris
1.10.2009 8:13pm
jj08 (mail):
One think the media learned from Rathergate is the following: Don't ever admit you are wrong.

Recall the "Jamil Hussein" fraud a few years ago that al-AP tried to push off on us? To this day they still will not admit it was a lie. No one at al-AP lost their job over this.

Contrast that with Dan Rather, who is walking the unemployment line.

Moral of the story for our government-run media: Never admit that you told a fib. No wonder CNN is circling the wagons at light speed.
1.10.2009 8:49pm
Dan Simon (mail) (www):
By keeping reporters who are willing to risk a war zone out of the war zone, Israel is shooting itself in the foot. The only people who can report are the people who live there. When you leave the reporting grunt work to the most biased people available, the coverage will be biased.

It'll also be less competent. Had CNN personnel been allowed into Gaza, they would have made sure that the fake horror-story footage about Palestinian victims was more professional, and there'd likely be no glaring evidence of fakery for critics to point to.
1.10.2009 8:50pm
BGates:
Unfortunately, most news organizations seem to be unaware of his advocacy, so I am willing to pardon CNN's mistake.
You're aware of his advocacy. I'd think CNN could live up to our standards of information gathering.
1.10.2009 8:50pm
cirby (mail):
An interesting thing is how some folks are blaming Israel for not allowing free passage for doctors, but let the Palestinian authorities off the hook - while the ICRC only mentions it in passing.

They want "free passage for ambulances." They don't mention, however, the use of ambulances in the Palestinian areas as troop and weapons transports - or as weapons themselves. A half hour after Israel starts to allow "free passage," ambulances will start blowing up at Israeli checkpoints, and the Hamas supporters will blame the Israelis for not doing, er, something about it.

...and when the first Red Crescent ambulance crew is murdered by Hamas and their equipment is stolen, it'll be the fault of the Israelis for "not assuring free passage."
1.10.2009 8:53pm
RPT (mail):
"CNN went along with Rathergate for quite a while before even CBS admitted the documents couldn't be verified. I don't think they went so far as to admit they were fake, but they could have."

This "Rather-gate" is really one of the conservatives' great propaganda coups. You might be surprised at what comes out in the Rather-CBS trial. CBS did what they need to do to keep Kevin Martin happy. If you believe that GWB completed his military service and that it is credible there is now no available documentation of such, then you might also believe that Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Doug Feith, David Addington, et al, also served honorably. Let's wait for the trial.
1.10.2009 9:22pm
whit:
RPT, way to evade the issue.

rathergate was not about whether GWB completed his military service. it was about reliance on OBVIOUSLY forged documents to "prove" that he didn't.

whether or not GWB served/skipped/etc. is not the issue.

CBS proferred obviously forged documents (google "throbbing memo" ) that were EASILY discovered as obvious forgeries by many, to include the guy at LGF's.

that this incredibly obvious forgery was used to "prove" that bush was AWOL etc. was journalistic hackery at its worse. it was simply not vetted.

if you are going to offer a "smoking gun" at a major news network to "prove" the potus (or potential potus) was in fact AWOL and did not complete his military service, you have a duty to use due diligence to vet the frigging document.

the fact that the "pajamas media" was able to easily identify the document as an obvious fakje is proof positive that it was not vetted to any significant degree.

rather (and mapes) justifiably lost their credibility and their jobs.

this scandal also graced us with such gems as "fake but accurate" that will hopefully forever live on in infamy.

the issues at trial at rathergate are a bit more complex, but the underlying fact is that CBS (specifically mapes/rather) failed to use due diligence in vetting a document that allegedly proved the president was AWOL.

CBS justifiably suffered a blow to its credibility for giving rather/mapes so much free reign to promote hackery and forgery.

hth
1.10.2009 9:29pm
Anonymous12345:
Dude. Get over it.

CNN supports Hamas. The UN supports Hamas. The entire Left supports Hamas.

CNN people will do whatever they can to kill Jews, to make TV-watching idiots hate Israelis, and support the Jihad. Whether Israel allows genocidal, Jew-hating, Liberal reports into Gaza or not will make no difference.

For now the IDF should focus on killing the little arab Eichmanns, and Israelis should work hard at convincing their government to stop their pacifist approach toward the little arab Eichmanns. 95% of Gazans support Hamas, and may G-d kill them all soon.
1.10.2009 9:47pm
BGates:
If you believe that GWB completed his military service
He did. He certainly served longer and in more dangerous circumstances than the incoming President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader combined (to say nothing of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Chairs and the House Chairs for Armed Services, Veterans' Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Homeland Security).

I trust all these people will recuse themselves from decisions on committing troops to combat, as they lack moral authority.
1.10.2009 10:08pm
FreddyB (mail):
Is any one else having a hard time figuring out those crumbled blocks on an otherwise pristine roof at 1:41 into the clip?
1.10.2009 10:13pm
Hoosier:
John
"...I don't see why CNN would want to double-down on this one."

Really? How about, it advances its anti-Israel agenda and enhances its revenue stream in those areas sharing this view.


BINGO!

Cornellian:

Having reported both viewpoints, CNN is thus being objective.

Yes. The old "Intelligent Design" dodge: We present both sides, and let people judge for themselves. But what if one side has evidence, and the other is--as they say in phylogenetics--"just making shit up"?
1.10.2009 10:36pm
Hoosier:
FreddyB
Is any one else having a hard time figuring out those crumbled blocks on an otherwise pristine roof at 1:41 into the clip?

Souvenirs from the 1981 Pink Floyd concert in Ashkelon. (According to David Gilmour.)
1.10.2009 10:38pm
JK:
It's hard to take these complaints seriously from a site with a banner for "Joe the plumber cover the Gaza conflict for pajama media" on the side of the page.
1.11.2009 12:12am
Dan Weber (www):
You might be surprised at what comes out in the Rather-CBS trial.

God, I hope so. I'm going to make a big batch of popcorn and watch Rather and CBS go into blame-storming. It'll be hilarious.

If you believe that GWB completed his military service

Irrelevant. If a cop is caught planting evidence on a guy who is "obviously guilty," I could see why the cop would keep on trying to focus on anything but himself by saying how the guy is really guilty. Fine, he's guilty, but that doesn't make the cop's behavior acceptable in any fashion.
1.11.2009 12:48am
duracomm (mail):
JK,

On any number of topics it would be difficult for Joe the plumber to do worse then the over credentialed, under competent mainstream media.

Especially when Joe's competition consists of folks like

Eason Jordan, Janet Cooke, Walter Duranty, Stephen Glass, Adnan Hajj, etc.
1.11.2009 12:57am
BGates:
It's hard to take these complaints seriously from a site with a banner for "Joe the plumber cover the Gaza conflict for pajama media" on the side of the page.
Right now on CNN : Larry King with "Oprah's Personal Struggle". (It's on the whole screen, too, not just the side.)
1.11.2009 1:00am
Hoosier:
Right now on CNN : Larry King with "Oprah's Personal Struggle". (It's on the whole screen, too, not just the side.)


And Oprah doesn't pay for the advertising.
1.11.2009 1:13am
RPT (mail):
The R-led Independent Review Panel did not conclude that the Killian documents were forgeries. "Throbbing Memo" is an LGF/RS buzzword; these guys are not exactly knowledgeable or reliable sources for forensic analysis, or any other kind of analysis, any more than is Brent Bozell. Accordingly,the issues are still open, or the jury is still out as they say.

As to "moral authority", it's a little late to require such, as the faux-fighters will soon be out of office. The next significant event will be the passing of the pardon deadline.
1.11.2009 2:26am
neurodoc:
einhverfr: I have generally found CNN to be reasonably worthless (though occasionally they do have some useful info). The BBC and its spinoffs though have been much better in general.
Maybe when compared to CNN, the BBC is "better in general," or even "much better in general," but it is no better, and maybe worse, when it comes to coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ever hear the BBC's chief Middle East correspondent Jim Muir express himself on the subject of Israel? Not much different from the execrable Robert Fisk.

CNN tones down the blatant bias in its broadcasts to US audiences from what they show elsewhere in the world. I don't know if the BBC does or doesn't do the same when it transmits here over NPR stations.
1.11.2009 2:43am
Dan Weber (www):
Accordingly,the issues are still open, or the jury is still out as they say.

No it isn't. The documents are forgeries. I'd bet my house and my life on it. There is no question at all. None.

If you are willing to discuss typesetting and the history of desktop publishing, I can explain why.
1.11.2009 3:15am
BIll N (mail):
Here is the proof that Rather faked the document:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
1.11.2009 7:20am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bgates:

If you believe that GWB completed his military service


He did.


Oh well, here we go again. I guess we'll still be hearing that false claim in 3009.

Bush's obligations included both active duty and inactive duty, and he definitely fell short of his obligations in the latter category:

Bush's records show that during the fiscal year of July 1, 1972, through June 30, 1973, Bush fell significantly short of this requirement to do inactive duty, obtaining only 36 points that year. He fared worse the following year, gaining only 12 points. Even if one uses May, the date of his induction, as the starting point in the points calculation, President Bush falls short of the minimum number of weekend drills required by his military service obligation his last two years. …

Lawrence Korb, a former Assistant Secretary for Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs during the Reagan Administration, said it was apparent that President Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation."

"When I look at his records it is clear he didn't do what he was supposed to do," Korb says. "Since he didn't do these those things, he should have been called to active duty."


I also recommend taking a look at the 32-page analysis that can be found via here:

"The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligations he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard," writes Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel


One more thing. A named witness reports hearing Bush himself admit that daddy's friends pulled strings to get him into TANG.
1.11.2009 8:35am
neurodoc:
George Bush's military service somehow pertains to the topic of this thread?!

Maybe threads about certain highly partisan topics (e.g., Bush's military service and the Rather documents; Bush v. Gore in 2000; etc.) so what is so OT in other threads could go there. How about it?
1.11.2009 9:43am
Ryan Waxx (mail):
but it's just frigging amazing. CPR is not exactly a rare procedure. that a NEWS organization could air a video of obviously fake CPR without noticing that it was obviously fake is frigging incredibly damning as to their shoddy reportership (is that a word).


Yes, not noticing it is pretty bad, but if you assume that they have the mental equivalent of a Wal-Mart bagger doing their fact checking, you can sort of understand how it could happen.

BUT... then they stood by its veracity after being warned it was a fake. Their "fact checking" appears to have consisted entirely of asking the source "did you lie?".

The fact checking obviously did not include actual fact-checking... like for example asking a doctor to opine... which is the unforgivable part. Does any one want to try and defend that behavior?

*crickets*
1.11.2009 9:56am
Sarcastro (www):

little arab Eichmanns

LABs I call them. Very annoying, what with their German-accented arabic, antisemetism and the constant oraganizing!

Where there's one, there's thousands more inside the walls.
1.11.2009 10:55am
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Sarcastro posts are the blog equivalent of a retarded person making little farty noises at the TV and giggling. They're all either strawmen or "Thank you, Captain Obvious".
1.11.2009 11:13am
Ryan Waxx (mail):
I apologize in advance for any insult to retarded people.
1.11.2009 11:14am
Sarcastro (www):
Ryan Waxx yelling about Sarcastro and giving him attention is not only productive, it makes him look super smart.
1.11.2009 11:58am
Hoosier:
Ryan Waxx
I apologize in advance for any insult to retarded people.
——-

None taken.
1.11.2009 12:05pm
Hoosier:
neurodoc

"CNN tones down the blatant bias in its broadcasts to US audiences from what they show elsewhere in the world. I don't know if the BBC does or doesn't do the same when it transmits here over NPR stations."

When the controversy about the Beeb's coverage of Israel first made big news in the States, I couldn't understand the fuss. I don't listen to BBC World very often, since it's on after my bed time. But when I have been up and listening, I wasn't blow-away by the bias. And the half-hour BBC-Int. that we get here five days a week on PBS is pretty well balanced.

THEN . . . I took a look a transcripts of stories that are aired in Europe. A completely different news organiztion. It doesn't often seem to be making any bow toward objectivity.
1.11.2009 12:12pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Hoosier:

Most of my experience watching the BBC has been in South-East Asia an South America. I haven't seen their European broadcasts. However, at least in those areas, the BBC seems better than CNN does there, and CNN is better there than it is in the US....
1.11.2009 12:19pm
David Warner:
"I don't see why CNN would want to double-down on this one."

Review the costs and benefits to CNN for doing so. Why did they agree to whitewash their Saddam coverage?
1.11.2009 12:53pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
neurodoc:

George Bush's military service somehow pertains to the topic of this thread?!


The topic was first raised many comments ago, here. If you want to play topic police, I think you should address your complaint to the person who raised the topic. Your timing suggests that you're not upset that the topic came up, but only upset about what was just said about it.
1.11.2009 1:06pm
AntonK (mail):

It is commonly said that by storing weapons in mosques and firing rockets and mortars from residential areas and school yards, Hamas is using human shields in Gaza, a war crime. But the truth is really worse than that. Hamas doesn't endanger civilians in hopes that it will deter retaliation; it does so in the hope and expectation that civilians will be killed and wounded.

This tactic is part of a larger strategy to create tragedy and disaster, which the Palestinians have developed into something akin to an industrial process. They build tunnels, but they do not build bomb shelters. They do not, apparently, suspend classes in schools in the midst of bombardments. And Hamas, with the tolerance if not approval of most Gazans, uses schoolyards as launching zones for rockets and mortars. Think about it: is there anything about a schoolyard that makes it a particularly desirable place from which to fire ordnance? No. Hamas uses schools (and mosques, and residential areas generally) in this way in the hope that civilians, especially children, will be killed.

http://tinyurl.com/8h5m7d
1.11.2009 2:32pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
The topic was first raised many comments ago, here. If you want to play topic police, I think you should address your complaint to the person who raised the topic. Your timing suggests that you're not upset that the topic came up, but only upset about what was just said about it.
As usual, you demonstrate either dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension. The topic of this thread is a news organization standing by fake evidence. The topic of the comment you link to was CBS standing by fake evidence, not George Bush's military service.

Yes, to respond to your anticipated feigned incredulousness, those are different issues, just as the Israel Lobby and Israel are different issues. Whether George Bush actually served is independent of whether the documents were forged, and hence is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
1.11.2009 2:54pm
Bad English:
"As usual, you demonstrate either dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension."


Well, at least he didn't spam the thread with twenty posts in a row to state what could easily have been said in one concise response.
1.11.2009 3:40pm
Hoosier:
Sarcastro
"Only Rush can tell me what reality is doing. Anything else is lies, and probably Hitlerian.

Case in point, CNN whose every move is to advance their Godless, Communist, Muslim, antisemetic, Stalinist, Orwellian, Satanic, Lenninist, Nazi, Gay agenda."

But I shall stop them.

SPOON!
1.11.2009 4:34pm
neurodoc:
Jukeboxograd: neurodoc:...Your timing suggests that you're not upset that the topic came up, but only upset about what was just said about it.
Wrong. I cared not a whit about what was said regarding Bush's military service, just found it annoying that those who are so obsessed with such bring it up in a wholly unrelated thread.
1.11.2009 8:12pm
neurodoc:
Hoosier: ...the half-hour BBC-Int. that we get here five days a week on PBS is pretty well balanced.

THEN . . . I took a look a transcripts of stories that are aired in Europe. A completely different news organiztion. It doesn't often seem to be making any bow toward objectivity.
Thanks for the affirmation. Now, what should be concluded from that difference in their broadcasts to different audiences, other than that the BBC isn't the reliable source some think? If they were consistent with the bias, one might believe that's just the way they see things, but because they are pretty consistently inconsistent, and always in the same way, it strikes me as far worse. The NYT for all of its faults is privately owned and must compete in the open marketplace, but the BBC is buffered against market forces and largely free to abuse their privileged position. Don't let those measured tones and memories of Churchill broadcasting those stirring words over its airwaves give the BBC more respect than it deserves, which ain't all that much.
1.11.2009 8:22pm
John Skookum (mail):
<blockquote>
Many people were worried about this one-sided war making it more difficult for Israel and the Arabs to eventually come to terms
</blockquote>


Hah hah. Coming to terms. That's rich.

There are no "terms" when it comes to Islam. There is bloodshed now, or more bloodshed later. I would not care a whit if Gaza was reduced to the Stone Age.
1.11.2009 8:23pm
John Skookum (mail):
<blockquote>
Many people were worried about this one-sided war making it more difficult for Israel and the Arabs to eventually come to terms
</blockquote>


Hah hah. Coming to terms. That's rich.

There are no "terms" when it comes to Islam. There is bloodshed now, or more bloodshed later. I would not care a whit if Gaza was reduced to the Stone Age.
1.11.2009 8:23pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
nieporent:

The topic of the comment you link to was CBS standing by fake evidence, not George Bush's military service.


For some strange reason a comment about 'Rathergate' led to other comments about "George Bush's military service." How bizarre! After all, there's no connection between the two, right?
1.11.2009 9:59pm
PlugInMonster:
Notice a pattern emerging from the left. Every time a bunch of Arabs get killed by the IDF, Israel is completely de-legitimized as a state. However whenever a suicide bombing happened in Israel, Palestine was never de-legitimatized in the minds of the left.

The only logical conclusion I can get from all that is that the left has thrown in their full blooded support to the Islamofascist Nazis.
1.11.2009 11:27pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
For some strange reason a comment about 'Rathergate' led to other comments about "George Bush's military service." How bizarre! After all, there's no connection between the two, right?
Really, communication does not involve mere pattern-matching of words. When you grasp that, you might be able to convince people that you're not autistic.

There are many "connections" between many things. Few of those "connections" are relevant in all contexts. George Bush's military service is not relevant to this context, which is about the media standing by discredited stories.

It doesn't matter whether George Bush was George Patton or whether he deserted on day 1 of his training and bribed people to keep quiet; none of that changes whether those particular documents were genuine.
1.11.2009 11:39pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
It doesn't matter whether George Bush was George Patton or whether he deserted on day 1 of his training and bribed people to keep quiet; none of that changes whether those particular documents were genuine.


Whether or not "those particular documents were genuine," none of that changes the fact that Bush didn't meet his obligations. But talking about fonts makes for a nice distraction, though.
1.12.2009 12:18am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Whether or not "those particular documents were genuine," none of that changes the fact that Bush didn't meet his obligations.
Who cares? Even if that issue were relevant once, it sure isn't now. And even if it were relevant to something now, it's not relevant to this conversation.


(But exposing evidence as false is never a "distraction" from a discussion of that evidence. I can see why you'd think otherwise, though.)
1.12.2009 1:32am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Even if that issue were relevant once, it sure isn't now.


If Dan Rather's integrity and job performance are still relevant (and you and the commenter you're defending seem to think so), then the same is true for Dubya. Here's one reason: the latter had (and still has, for a few more days) a much more important job.

exposing evidence as false is never a "distraction" from a discussion of that evidence


But it is a distraction from a story that's bigger and more important than "a discussion of that evidence." Unless you think that evaluating Dan Rather's integrity and job performance is more important than evaluating Dubya's. But I could see why you would like to discuss the former in order to divert attention from the latter.
1.12.2009 8:19am
Dan Weber (www):
Unless you think that evaluating Dan Rather's integrity and job performance is more important than evaluating Dubya's.

Okay, new policy for Volokh Conspiracy: we're not allowed to talk about anything but the President.

After all, any other topic isn't as important.
1.12.2009 9:45am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
As long as we're going OT about presidents and wannabes, let's recall that Kerry did not release his entire record, as promised, and, further, no journo has challenged him on it.
Now, I know you can't prove anything about Kerry's record because it isn't released, which proves there's nothing to worry about there. Since we have no evidence. SInce it wasn't released. Channeling juke.
So what we have is the question of whether Bush bailed early versus Kerry's involvement in Winter Soldier, seeing Hanoi representatives while an officer in the Navy (reserve), VVAW including discussions of killing Senators, and whether any of that, or anything else, was reflected in his service record.
But, since Kerry was running on his record and Bush wasn't, Bush's record was the only one that counted. Channeling juke.
Anyway, it's a long way from faked evidence, but it does have the happy consequence of distracting us and the discussion from Pallywood's lame attempts and CNN's reputation as a shill. Which is good. And the point.
1.12.2009 10:14am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
we're not allowed to talk about anything but the President


I think you've got it backwards. I wasn't objecting to the idea that someone wanted to talk about Dan Rather. I was objecting to the idea that talking about a newscaster is important but talking about the president isn't.
1.12.2009 10:29am
Orson Buggeigh:
Trying to go back on topic, the fact that so much of the media is willing to run stories which are shown to be false, and then failing to correct their errors, or worse, standing by them poses a serious threat to democracy. The availability of accurate, factual information about what is going on is critical to an informed electorate making decisions. Yet there seems to be a lack of concern by many - except to complain that their political rivals are all at fault.

The political right has sometimes been heavy handed in its efforts to censor material, or to shape public opinion. But for the past thirty years, the problem seems to be a loss of good old fashioned skepticism about all sources on the part of the media. Since the media tends to be sympathetic to the ideology of the political left, this tendency to be critical of the political right, and tolerant to the political left has shown itself as an increasing problem in the media.

The willingness to accept faked footage is nothing new. Villa staged raids for movie makers, hoping to boost his popularity with Norteamericanos, and the Palestinians are doing it for CNN. The problem is, we seem to be, if anything, even more accepting of faked footage now. Where is the outrage, and the demands for the firing of the folks at CNN who approved this?

We know - the CNN people are pro-Palestinian, therefore pro peace. Sort of like the folks who said all we needed to do was give Hitler and Stalin what they wanted, and the world would have peace. Good luck. I am not optimistic about the prospects for democracy at this rate.
1.12.2009 10:36am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
aubrey:

Kerry did not release his entire record


You must be thinking of a different "Kerry." The Kerry I know did "release his entire record." See here, here and here.

So what we have is the question of whether Bush bailed early


It's not a "question." Enough facts are available to know that "Bush bailed early."
1.12.2009 11:00am
Federal Dog:
"I was objecting to the idea that talking about a newscaster is important but talking about the president isn't."

The president wasn't involved in trying to pass off fraudulent documents as authentic. The newscaster was. The distinction is very basic. It shouldn't be so difficult for you to grasp.
1.12.2009 11:06am
Abdul Abulbul Amir (mail):
RTP:

<blockquote>
The R-led Independent Review Panel did not conclude that the Killian documents were forgeries.
</blockquote>

You may have missed Apendix 4.


Link

See the second paragraph.

The examiner CBS hired concluded that the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriterm but were prodeced on a computer. Case closed.
1.12.2009 11:13am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
juke.
Good for you. Still dodging Pallywood and CNN's shilling.
1.12.2009 11:54am
David M. Nieporent (www):
If Dan Rather's integrity and job performance are still relevant (and you and the commenter you're defending seem to think so), then the same is true for Dubya.
False. Here's why: there is no such thing as abstract "relevance"; something must be relevant to something.

Rather's performance is still relevant to this conversation, which is about the media. Bush's performance is not relevant to this conversation, which is not about the Vietnam War or George Bush.
1.12.2009 1:07pm
Dan Weber (www):
It's with hesitation that I type this, because the guys who think that the documents haven't been proved false will probably pick up on some key word and think that their side is still right, but I need to correct this:
The examiner CBS hired concluded that the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriterm but were prodeced on a computer. Case closed.
It is true that Tytell was sought as an expert by CBS before the initial broadcast, and Tytell tried repeatedly to signal his concerns to CBS but that Mapes didn't care because she only wanted to hear from document examiners who would give her the answer she wanted. But the panel did not say that the documents were forgeries. Their actual statement:
The Panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects. The Panel observes, however, that if 60 Minutes Wednesday management had met with Tytell and heard the same information as did the Panel, it might not have continued to support so fully the authenticity of the Killian documents absent further investigation
Again, this doesn't mean that the documents were not forgeries. (They were.) But, since we're having conversation about accuracy, we need to be accurate about exactly what the panel said.
1.12.2009 1:38pm
BobDoyle (mail):
Why does anyone EVER reply to the snot-nosed troll?
1.12.2009 3:49pm
Xanthippas (mail) (www):
David Bernstein, the Confederate Yankee of the Volokh Conspiracy.
1.12.2009 8:58pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

The president wasn't involved in trying to pass off fraudulent documents as authentic. The newscaster was. The distinction is very basic. It shouldn't be so difficult for you to grasp.


The president was involved in trying to pass off fraudulent claims about his biography. The importance of this shouldn't be so difficult for you to grasp. Likewise for the fact that the integrity of a president is far more important than the integrity of a newscaster.

==========
aubrey:

Still dodging Pallywood and CNN's shilling.


I'm not dodging anything. Did you ask me a question about those matters? If so, I missed seeing it. Maybe you should tell us where it's hidden.

Here's a question for you: why did you falsely claim that Kerry didn't release his complete record? Just one more in a long series of false claims that you've made, and you're "still dodging" the questions I've raised about the prior instances (examples).

==========
nieporent:

Rather's performance is still relevant to this conversation … Bush's performance is not relevant to this conversation


The problem with your arbitrary and self-serving line-drawing is that "Bush's performance" is relevant to "Rather's performance."
1.13.2009 9:31am
Federal Dog:
"The president was involved in trying to pass off fraudulent claims about his biography."

Only according to "evidence" that was fabricated by his political enemies. Wholesale fabrication says something only about the frauds responsible for inventing and promulgating it, including Dan Rather. It is sad that you are so consumed by hatred that you can be so easily duped by long-disproven political deception.
1.13.2009 11:07am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

Only according to "evidence" that was fabricated by his political enemies.


Uh, wrong. The evidence I cited here does not rely on the Killian documents and was not "fabricated by his political enemies." If you have evidence of "fabrication" in the evidence I cited, you should go ahead and show it to us.
1.13.2009 11:15am
Federal Dog:
Thank you for establishing that you cannot post the actual records that prove your claims, only second-hand hearsay claims from Bush's media enemies.
1.13.2009 12:43pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
The problem with your arbitrary and self-serving line-drawing is that "Bush's performance" is relevant to "Rather's performance."
As already explained to you, it was not. Bush's performance, war hero or deserter, is utterly irrelevant to whether the documents used by Rather were forgeries. That -- media use of false evidence -- is the topic of this thread, which makes it not "arbitrary" or "self-serving" at all.
1.13.2009 1:33pm
Yankev (mail):

As already explained to you, it was not. Bush's performance, war hero or deserter, is utterly irrelevant to whether the documents used by Rather were forgeries. That -- media use of false evidence -- is the topic of this thread, which makes it not "arbitrary" or "self-serving" at all.
David N -- JukeBG is using the Mohammed Al Dura defense -- that if someone is evil, then any lie that you tell is justified so long as it makes people realize how evil he is. Thus it does not matter that the Rather memo was an obvious forgery that Rather failed to catch, because the memo expressed the greater truth that Bush shirked his military duties and lied about it.

I have some serious problems with that being a valid defense, but its quite accepted in many quarters, from medieval Christendom (e.g. the Prioress' Tale) to the contemporary middle east, UC Irvine, and today's left.
1.13.2009 2:00pm
Dan Weber (www):
If we were discussing a cop planting evidence on someone, it would wholly irrelevant if the guy was actually guilty or not. That someone's guilt or innocence has no bearing on the ethics of the cop's actions, although I'm sure the cop would love to distract the issue away from himself.
1.13.2009 2:25pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

Thank you for establishing that you cannot post the actual records that prove your claims


Thank you for establishing that you're inclined to ignore plain facts even when they're placed under your nose. "The actual records" are referenced in the 32-page pdf I cited. Are you click-impaired?

only second-hand hearsay claims from Bush's media enemies.


This is a partial list of the experts cited in one of the articles I referenced, who explained that Bush didn't meet his obligations:

- a former Assistant Secretary for Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs during the Reagan Administration

- a retired colonel who was legal counsel to U.S. Air Force commanders during the first Gulf War and now directs Duke Law School's Center for Law, Ethics and National Security

- a veteran Army officer who also served in the Marines during the Vietnam War

- a Brig. Gen. who now heads the Texas Military Forces Museum

- a retired colonel who is a professor at the Industrial College of The Armed Forces and the author of an official history of the Army Reserve

This has nothing to do with "second-hand hearsay claims." This has to do with experts who examined the records released by Bush and reached a conclusion.

Let us know if you actually have some factual basis for describing these individuals as "Bush's media enemies." As it is, that seems to be your euphemism for 'anyone who says something I don't like.'

=================
nieporent:

As already explained to you, it was not


I already explained to you why it is.

=================
yankev:

if someone is evil, then any lie that you tell is justified


We'll be waiting patiently while you find the place where I said that what Rather did is "justified."

We're also waiting patiently for you to take responsibility for peddling the nonsense I pointed out here. I'm really intrigued to hear about the Satmar who "encourage Jews to settle in Eretz Yisrael."

=================
weber:

I'm sure the cop would love to distract the issue away from himself.


And the pals of the guy who got nabbed would love to distract the issue away from the guy who got nabbed, even though the guy who got nabbed deserved to get nabbed, and even though his behavior is far more important than the cop's behavior.
1.13.2009 2:55pm
cognitis:
Evidently the Jews have used phosphorous bombs not only as light but also as a weapon. Go to this site, and view a baby apparently burned by phosphorus: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m50761&hd=&size=1&l=e . The Jews' exquisite observations and exquisite excuses all make the Jews seem all the more guilty.
1.13.2009 3:22pm
Federal Dog:
Which is nothing but an unnecessarily wordy and convoluted way of admitting that you cannot provide actual records and hope that people will not notice that the links are nothing but second-hand hearsay.
1.13.2009 3:23pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

an unnecessarily wordy and convoluted way of admitting that you cannot provide actual records


The military records that Bush released can be found in the form of 19 pdf files here. Those are "actual records." Those "actual records" are carefully analyzed in a 32-page pdf here. What those "actual records" show is that Bush didn't meet his obligations. Multiple independent experts examined those "actual records" and reached the same conclusion.

I already pointed to that pdf, here.

You're doing a nice job of proving that you're inclined to ignore plain facts even when they're spoon-fed to you.

the links are nothing but second-hand hearsay


Let us know if you have any "actual" evidence to show that Bush's "actual records" are something other than "actual records." Then again, maybe you're claiming that Bush didn't really release his military records, but only released "second-hand hearsay."
1.13.2009 3:51pm
Yankev (mail):

Evidently the Jews have used phosphorous bombs
Glad we're only talking about Israel here.


not only as light but also as a weapon. Go to this site, and view a baby apparently burned by phosphorus: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m50761&hd=&size=1&l=e .
And how would that prove that the phosphorus was used as a weapon? If the Jews wanted to burn babies, there are weapons that would do it more effectively.

The Jews' exquisite observations and exquisite excuses all make the Jews seem all the more guilty.
As the veil continues to drop.
1.13.2009 6:03pm
Yankev (mail):
Cognitis, your "source" also accuses Israel of having used nerve agents in Gaza in 2003. Forgive my skepticism, but I'll wait for a more reliable source. It is pretty well known that Israel is using phosphorus as a smoke agent to screen troop movement, which is permitted by international law. You have yet to show any credible source that the IDF is using it as an anti-personnel agent.
1.13.2009 6:07pm
Federal Dog:
"The military records that Bush released can be found in the form of 19 pdf files here."

Which reflect no wrongdoing whatsoever.


"Those "actual records" are carefully analyzed in a 32-page pdf here."


In which some person touted by Bush's media enemies does not actually include records and merely smears Bush in second-hand conclusory hearsay.


We get it. You hate Bush and are ready to stoop to any deception to smear him.
1.13.2009 6:14pm
Yankev (mail):
Juke, for now I will retract my statement about Satmar encouraging people to move to Israel. That said, there are definitely Satmar hasidim living in Israel, and there are definitely Satmar charities that raise money for the relief of impovershed Israelis.
1.13.2009 6:15pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
yankev:

Israel is using phosphorus as a smoke agent to screen troop movement, which is permitted by international law


That's generally true, but since this is a densely populated area, there other issues that come into play. Some helpful details are here.

for now I will retract my statement about Satmar encouraging people to move to Israel


Thanks, I appreciate that. It would be better if it hadn't taken you so long.

there are definitely Satmar hasidim living in Israel


I never denied that fact, and I also don't see any particular significance in that fact.

there are definitely Satmar charities that raise money for the relief of impovershed Israelis


I never denied that fact, and I also don't see any particular significance in that fact.

===========
federal:

Which reflect no wrongdoing whatsoever.


That's true, provided you believe that Bush failing to meet his commitments, and then lying about it, does not constitute "wrongdoing."

In which some person touted by Bush's media enemies does not actually include records and merely smears Bush in second-hand conclusory hearsay.


The "some person" is a retired Army colonel who served active duty as a Marine (1967-69). Do you have some factual basis to libel him, or is it just something off the top of your head? And the same question applies to the multiple other experts I cited.

And when you say he "does not actually include records," you're simply making shit up. He includes 183 footnotes showing in detail how his conclusions are proven by the records that Bush released.

We get it. You hate Bush and are ready to stoop to any deception to smear him.


We get it. You love Bush and are ready to deny plain facts in order to defend him. Here's a clue: evidence doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes and hope for magic.
1.13.2009 10:16pm
Yankev (mail):

The "some person" is a retired Army colonel who served active duty as a Marine (1967-69).
Was he in the Marines or in the Army?

Do you have some factual basis to libel him, or is it just something off the top of your head?
Did he serve with Bush? If not, where did he obtain his information about Bush's service (or lack thereof) in the Air National Guard? And how is it libelous to say that someone uttered hearsay or lacked first hand knowledge?
1.14.2009 6:42pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
yankev:

Was he in the Marines or in the Army?


Apparently both. Take a look at the pdf I cited.

where did he obtain his information about Bush's service (or lack thereof) in the Air National Guard?


Duh. From the many pages of official records released by Bush. You're making it really obvious that you haven't even bothered to open the pdf.

how is it libelous to say that someone uttered hearsay or lacked first hand knowledge?


It's libelous to describe Lechliter's work as a 'smear' when not a shred of evidence is provided to substantiate that claim. And it's utterly false to describe his work as "hearsay" and to claim he "lacked first hand knowledge" when in fact all the key data behind his conclusions can be found in the records released by Bush himself.

And multiple other credible experts reached the same conclusions as Lechliter.
1.14.2009 10:32pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Another article summarizing the situation is here. It's interesting to notice that even Lloyd, the expert handpicked by Bush to defend him, "agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation."
1.14.2009 10:43pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.