@#$& Dan Rather and CBS.

[Sundog]

In conclusion, the Kerry campaign did not contact Burkett and then have him call CBS.
.

Uhm...

Lockhart(Kerry campaign adviser), who confirms talking to Bill Burkett, the man who gave suspect documents to CBS...

?

Did you actually read the article? Here's the relevant chronology from it:

But Lockhart said there was no coordination. He said he talked to Burkett after getting a call from a Mapes (the CBS producer), who said Burkett had been a help on a National Guard story she was working on and wanted to speak to someone in the Kerry campaign.

It's no use. He chooses not to understand. Like Luke and his Kerry flip-flop fixation.

It's all our-team-versus-your-team with these guys. No matter how smart they are, apparently.

[Grammatron]

Seems just as reasonable as discussing Bush's record.

From the same article

Asked what he had learned about Bush's National Guard service, Lockhart said, "Not a single detail. [Burkett] didn't tell me anything; I didn't ask him anything."

So Mapes told Lockhart that he helped on the National Guard service story and he didn't ask or was told anything about that very subject? Sounds very believable.

[OckhamRules]

It's no use. He chooses not to understand. Like Luke and his Kerry flip-flop fixation.

It's all our-team-versus-your-team with these guys. No matter how smart they are, apparently.

I guess you're right. Too bad because I think they seem smart, too.

I've been waiting for one of the Bush supporters to post in the thread in Shanek's thread "in support of your candidate"--because I'm extremely curious (HOW? WHY?).

I'm sure they have their reasons and that they seem like good reasons to Bush supporters.

But...the thread has only posts from Dems and Libertarians. I wonder if any Bush supporter will ever write a coherent statement of support there so the rest of us could learn something from the other side?

Looks like the answer is .... no.

[Bruce]

hey, Hey, HEY!! Dan Rather said he was sorry, ok. Doesn't that make it all better?

[Grammatron]

Well you seemed like some one I could have a debate with w/o it getting into personal insults. So much for that.

[Sundog]

Well you seemed like some one I could have a debate with w/o it getting into personal insults. So much for that.

Don't be that way! We're sorry we called you smart!

(Ummm... what insult? I missed it.)

[Luke T.]

So...no Kerry campaign involvement in the "memo problem" whatsoever.

A campaign advisor speaking with the forger is your idea of no involvement???

[Grammatron]

Well you seemed like some one I could have a debate with w/o it getting into personal insults. So much for that.

Don't be that way! We're sorry we called you smart!

(Ummm... what insult? I missed it.)

I was referring to your allusion of me being ignorant. I don't much care for that.

[Luke T.]

If Karl Rove had talked to the forger, what kind of hay would you guys make of that? What would Dan Rather have made of it?

You see the difference? The only real non-involvement is Karl Rove. Absolutely none. But that didn't stop the attempted smear against him from being widely circulated.

HUGE difference.

[Sundog]

Well you seemed like some one I could have a debate with w/o it getting into personal insults. So much for that.

Don't be that way! We're sorry we called you smart!

(Ummm... what insult? I missed it.)

I was referring to your allusion of me being ignorant. I don't much care for that.

Where did I say that? Nonsense. I think I have said precisely the opposite a couple of times today.

I said you choose not to understand. A different thing altogether.

[Grammatron]

I said you choose not to understand. A different thing altogether.

Isn't that Ignorance? I recognize English is not my first language but it appears you're saying I chose to be ignorant of the "Truth" in light of all the "Facts."

[Sundog]

I said you choose not to understand. A different thing altogether.

Isn't that Ignorance? I recognize English is not my first language but it appears you're saying I chose to be ignorant of the "Truth" in light of all the "Facts."

I didn't mean to be insulting. I'm sure you know that. It seems to me that that's what you do sometimes though - you choose not to recognize something clear that's right in front of you..

My apologies. I don't think you do it intentionally or dishonestly; I think that sometimes you don't think through points on the left as well as you do points on the right.

[Grammatron]

I said you choose not to understand. A different thing altogether.

Isn't that Ignorance? I recognize English is not my first language but it appears you're saying I chose to be ignorant of the "Truth" in light of all the "Facts."

I didn't mean to be insulting. I'm sure you know that. It seems to me that that's what you do sometimes though - you choose not to recognize something clear that's right in front of you..

My apologies. I don't think you do it intentionally or dishonestly; I think that sometimes you don't think through points on the left as well as you do points on the right.

I think I simply look at the issue and see things differently. We both see facts the same, but the conclusion we draw from these facts will most likely be different seen we both view life differently.

For this exact reason I don't think either of us is right or wrong in most of this discussions. And while you may think I chose not see something that's in front of me, sometimes I think you see things that are not there at all. That is kind of weird if not funny.

[OckhamRules]

But Lockhart said there was no coordination. He said he talked to Burkett after getting a call from a Mapes, who said Burkett had been a help on a National Guard story she was working on and wanted to speak to someone in the Kerry campaign.

Umm...not to be pedantic, but Burkett says he wasn't the forger. He claims someone else gave him the documents.

Also, all this took place after CBS had their story. That makes a big difference.

And, Burkett's not just a guy from out of nowhere. He was in the National Guard and did work with Killian. He's known from things he's said about Bush before. It's no surprise that he supports Kerry or would be upset about all the smearing from the Swift Boat group. If Lockhart called him back, well, I'm envious because I have a lot I'd like to tell them too , but I don't think its such a big deal.

I think Bob Novak collaborating with "senior adminstration officials" to out a CIA agent in revenge for criticizing Bush's policies...well, to me, that is infinitely worse than Dan Rather not listening to the people they consulted to vet these documents.

[Grammatron]

Umm...not to be pedantic, but Burkett says he wasn't the forger. He claims someone else gave him the documents.

And, he's not just a guy from out of nowhere. He was in the National Guard and did work with Killian. He's known from things he's said about Bush before. It's no surprise that he supports Kerry or would be upset about all the smearing from the Swift Boat group. If Lockhart called him back, well, I'm envious because I have a lot I'd like to tell them too , but I don't think its such a big deal.

I think Bob Novak collaborating with "senior adminstration officials" to out a CIA agent in revenge for criticizing Bush's policies...well, to me, that is infinitely worse than Dan Rather not listening to the people they consulted to vet these documents.

And that's connected to National Guard how?

[OckhamRules]

And that's connected to National Guard how?

Hey, Grammatron, guess what?

The topic of journalistic ethics is actually broader than stories about the National Guard!

People are criticizing Rather for ethics concerns--mainly that he didn't adequately check his sources and may have been blinded by political bias.

I'm pointing out what a total PASS the same press gave Novak for a much worse action, ethically and journalistically speaking--and obviously, not a mistake.

And, unlike Rather, there's no that doubt Novak's action was not a "mistake" and that the political bias was clearly the motivating factor.

Still...silence from the press.

[Grammatron]

And that's connected to National Guard how?

Hey, Grammatron, guess what?

The topic of journalistic ethics is actually broader than stories about the National Guard!

People are criticizing Rather for ethics concerns--mainly that he didn't adequately check his sources and may have been blinded by political bias.

I'm pointing out what a total PASS the same press gave Novak for a much worse action, ethically and journalistically speaking--and obviously, not a mistake.

And, unlike Rather, there's no that doubt Novak's action was not a "mistake" and that the political bias was clearly the motivating factor.

Still...silence from the press.

I admit to be have almost no knowledge of the Novak story. What I recall is someone in the white house leaked that some guy's wife use to be a CIA agent. Have there been new developments?

[OckhamRules]

I admit to be have almost no knowledge of the Novak story. What I recall is someone in the white house leaked that some guy's wife use to be a CIA agent. Have there been new developments?

Close, but not quite. Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly criticized the Bush policy on Iraq. In revenge, a "senior White House official", called several reporters and told them that Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was actually a covert CIA agent.

Novak printed that in his column, basically wrecking her career, endangering her safety, and making himself a treasonous tool of the administration. (Or in the words of Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, "Robert Novak: Douchebag of Liberty").

The FBI is "investigating" to see which administration official leaked it. And investigating...and investigating...and investigating.....

[Evolver]

OK. Let me get this straight. CBS & Rather rely on false information and air a story about Bush's service record. Now everything they tell you is suspect.

Bush & Company rely on false information to justify going to war, and still you righties blindly believe everything they say.

Ironic.

[Andalyn]

OK. Let me get this straight. CBS & Rather rely on false information and air a story about Bush's service record. Now everything they tell you is suspect.

Bush & Company rely on false information to justify going to war, and still you righties blindly believe everything they say.

Ironic.

Of all the justifications for going to war, you lefties seem to be stuck on only one. Which, I might add - the UN, England, Germany, Russia, and most of the rest of the damn world thought the WMD was there.

In Bush's speech, he listed several reasons for going to war with Iraq. You lefties only want to carp on one.