Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

60 Liberal Minutes aired a fabricated story based on a fabricated memo written by an un-named source in order to defame the President. Dan Rather got caught with his pants down but has made matters worse by standing behind the memo's authenticity. I think it is time for Dan Rather to say "I am not a crook!"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 09:11 pm: Edit

great. I seriously hope CBS and Rather will crash to the ground in a flaming wreck.


That being said, I'm still waiting for the "official" proof that the documents are faked, even though many experts have already questioned their validity.

Also, I'm waiting for CBS is reveal which one of their sources said that the documents were "absolutely true." Also I'm waiting for a full scale investigation by CBS into the document forgeries, who supplied them, and whether it was intentional. The last expert CBS used to try to back the authenticity of the documents actually backfired on them, when he said he only said the signature was real (though it could be easily faked) and that he never stated the rest of the documents were real.

Dan Rather already has egg all over his face. I guess I'll be calm and rational and wait for the official verdict before making judgements.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 09:12 pm: Edit

man i have to rip my self away from the Cafe more often.

GPA...already....dropping...

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

I'm all for an independent source to review the documents. I hope CBS agrees...and avoids looking completely foolish.

By Mr_Sanguine (Mr_Sanguine) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit

good call candi

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit

hmm...this coudl cost dan rather his job, no?

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:23 am: Edit

Two of the documents examiners CBS hired raised doubts about the documents before the story aired. Dan Rather ignored them and went ahead with his fabricated story. It should cost him his job. He has lost his crediblity. CBS's reaction is to stonewall the whole matter.

From ABC news:

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.

But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 02:17 pm: Edit

If there's ever been any doubt about the mainstream media being in bed with the Democrats, that doubt has now been blown out of the water. Thank God most of the American people are able to see through it all. Rasmussen is due out with a poll this afternoon that shows a majority of the American people who vote believe that the documents are forgeries.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 02:37 pm: Edit

"If there's ever been any doubt about the mainstream media being in bed with the Democrats, that doubt has now been blown out of the water."

Can anyone say, "Amen"...

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

This whole story is amazing. Did you see the NY Times article quoting the lawyer for Bill Burkett (the guy who alleges that Bush's NG documents were destroyed on purpose when he was governor and who some believe may be the source for the "alleged" forgeries)?

Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, Mr. Van Os said: "If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done'' - then, he continued, "what difference would it make?"

It appears that their defense now is that it is OK to create replicas of documents that they think may have existed in 1972. What I want to know is what law school did this guy go to?

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Looks to me like Mr. Van Os has smartly positioned himself as a potential candidate for the federal bench in a future Kerry administration.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit

That was my first thought as well - only I was thinking Attorney General. Maybe Dan Rather has his sight on press secretary.

Turns out he is a Democratic kingpin in his county in Texas. The focus is more and more on his client. Reports are now that the documents were faxed to CBS from a Kinkos in Abilene - the same Kinkos with which Burkett has an account. It was interesting that on 60 Minutes II last night when the interviewed Killian's typist, one of the reasons why she was certain that the documents were forged was that they didn't use Airforce National Guard terminolgy. She said it was terminology used by the army. Burkett was in the army National Guard. Coincidence????

By Perry (Perry) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit

The irony is that the allegedly forged documents contain the truth about little George who dodged military service and failed to fulfill his obligations in the National Guard, but who now employs henchmen through his political operatives to smear Kerry's active service record in Vietnam. Killian's typist has said that in her view the documents are forgeries but that they are accurate in reflecting Killian's thoughts about Bush.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

1) You may view the Swift Boat allegations as smears, and you may not believe them, but their story is at least as credible as Kerry's and they certainly have not resorted to felonies to create their case.

2) The lady is entitled to her opinion, but:

a)it should be noted that she is a staunch partisan who buys into the notion that Bush was "selected" not elected - hence not exactly an unbiased source for a character witness

b)Rather allowed her to speak for Bush's fellow pilots when in reality they do not suppport her representations of their views - again speaks to her credibility as a witness

c)Who do you think knows Killian's views about Bush more - his wife and son or the typist from the post?

Whether the allegations about Bush are true or not is not really an issue - something that the Democrats can't understand. The people have had 4 years to evaluate what kind of president Bush is; they don't need to know about what happened 30+ years ago. I don't think anyone in their right mind would vote for the GWB of 1972 or even 1982. However, people are (or at least should be) smart enough to evaluate him based on his last 4 years.

The real issue in this whole Rathergate mess is the totally inept (or possibly corrupt) journalism that is being practiced at CBS. The fact that they are willfully ignoring any experts or testimony that contradict their story would be truly frightening if you think about how bad it could get if all media outlets started acting this way.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit

This all reminds me of the Al Sharpton/Tawana Brawly scandal of a number of years ago. Tawana Brawley, a young black lady, claimed that she was covered with feces and called racial epithets by some unidentified white men. Al Sharpton used the case to make a name for himself.

Turns out the whole thing was a fraud. Never happened. The response of the race-baiters on the left was that "yeh, maybe, it didn't happen, but it could have happened." Nobody bothered to do any digging to see if it was true until after people's reputations had been destroyed. The left just assumed that it must be true because it seemed so believable to them. Same thing here, "yeh, the memos may not be authentic but we believe they're accurate." Based on what, a couple of Kerry operatives who say so? One of the bozos interviewed by Rather is one of the biggest fundraisers for .....drum roll, please.....the Kerry campaign! Gee what a surprise, but, of course it's the mean old Republicans who sic their political henchmen on the adversary, while those on the left are just trying to get the truth out. Sure.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit

documents fake or not, questions still remain regarding bush's service, and he, like many other affluent men during that time, got preferential treatment and was able to avoid the draft. and he did.

he did not go to vietnam. and any documents that prove he was where he was supposed to be during those days in question mysteriously disappeared from the pentagon.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit

I dont mention any names but one of the previous posters spewed out remarks not based on facutal evidence. Also this poster created a conclusion without any hard facts only with a speculation. Please, lets act like intellegnt people and only post things that can be backed up by some sort of evidence. If you say that Bush did lie then show me a lie and show me what he did lie about and mabe i will beleive it.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Hell has frozen over. The New York Times in Friday's edition questions Ted Baxter's judgment on the Bush National Guard memo issue.

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 04:11 am: Edit

Last I checked the Swift Boats for "Truth" roster it had 71 vets - 70 of whom did not serve with Kerry and had no first-knowledge of the events in question and one vet who did serve with Kerry, but was not on the boat during these events. Despite this, and the fact that anyone with direct knowledge of Kerry's actions supports his heroism, brain-dead right-wingers are still running around talking about how Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted.

As for the National Guard service flap, toss the documents in the wastebasket (even if they are not forgeries), lynch Dan Rather and it is still clear GWB sloughed off the last two years of his service. There are no colleagues or eyewitnesses, nor anything in the public record or the Guard files that supports the repeated claim that GWB fulfilled his obligation to serve. Even Bush knows, forgeries or not, that the documents accurately describe his behavior.

Personally, Bush's Guard slacking wouldn't even make my Top 10 list of reasons not to vote for him. His lying about it might, though, along with his disastrous handling of both the Afghan and Iraq wars, his lobbyist-directed tax and environmental missteps and just to pick one more, his stem-cell research grandstanding.

However, give him points for that dandy Mars exploration plan and his courageous stand against steroid use.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 09:16 am: Edit

did not serve with Kerry and had no first-knowledge of the events in question

This is absolutely wrong and shows that you need to get your facts straight before you impugn the reputation of others.

1) In the bronze star incident, there were 5 boats involved, one of which was hit by a mine, 3 of which stayed to assist and one of which fled and then returned (guess which one). How can you say that those on the other boats had no first hand knowledge of what happened?

2) In the first purple heart incident, Kerry was accompanied by another lieutenant who went on to become an admiral - he disavows Kerry's story of receiving enemy fire. Kerry's own personal journal admits that he hadn't yet been under enemy fire as of 9 days later.

3) These guys served on the same missions with Kerry when he said that they had committed atrocities - they were definitely first hand witnesses to the fact that they had NOT committed atrocities

4) Kerry's gunner was on the boat when Kerry filed a false report about attacking a sampan filled with VC, when in fact it was a family that left a small child dead (Kerry supports this view in his own private journal)

5) Kerry's gunner was on board on Christmas Eve wnen Kerry claimed to have been in Cambodia, which even the Kerry camp now finally admit it neve happened.

So, if you want to take off your blinders, you will see a lot of first hand accounts of what Kerry did or did not do. You will also see a lot of inconsistencies in the Kerry story.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 09:40 am: Edit

There are 250+ members of the Swift Boat group, 60-something of whom have direct, first hand knowledge of Kerry's actions in Vietnam. They consist mainly of fellow officers who ate and slept with Kerry, and served alongside him in their boats on joint missions. They also include one crew member of Kerry's boat. I've been reading the excerpts in the Washington Times and they are pretty damning.

The frustrating thing is, a lot of the allegations should be fairly easy to prove or disprove, based on documentation such as action reports filed by Kerry and others. It is a scandal that the major media ignores this stuff, yet broadcasts a report such as the one on 60 Minutes. And Dan Rather has the nerve to accuse the Republicans of being on a witch hunt against him?!! Sounds like another vast right wing conspiracy. Poor Dan, another victim.

I will agree that, because Bush has never really outright denied some of the Nat'l. Guard allegations, there is probably some truth there. I will make an educated guess that he probably skipped his last flight physical, which is not at all unusual. He signed on for 6 years, completed 5 1/2 years, and made all his flight physicals except the last one because he had just transferred to Alabama and knew he was going to be getting discharged soon. It was not unusual for such pilots to skip their last physical when they knew they were getting ready to turn in their wings. Also, according to a Fox News report, when an Air National Guard pilot skipped a physical (which is always due around your birthday, which was three months after the date of the memo in question), the commanding officer did not "order" you to take a physical, you were just grounded from flight duty. Anyway, I suspect there was some favoritism granted Bush, not just because he had friends in high places, but because there is always some favoritism towards officers, pilots, and guys who have an otherwise good record of service, to let him out a little early. But Bush has never denied missing a flight physical or being grounded, so there is probably something to that part of the story.

But that is no big deal compared to the allegations against Kerry. He claimed they were under 5,000 yards of fire, but no one but him was injured? And him only a little rice in the butt? And no boats destroyed by all these bullets? Every other officer in the five boats out there on March 13 says that Kerry was on the other side of the river from the mine explosion and turned and ran immediately, while the other boats took a defensive posture and rescued the other crew members from the water and also jumped on board the empty boat that was turning in circles.

Read the Swift Boat stuff before passing judgment on it. It has the ring of truth to it, and would be very difficult to make up. But we are being done a huge disservice by our media because they are not doing a proper investigation of the allegations. They need to check out the facts and point out the discrepancies. A little real journalism, please. Rather spent 5 years on his story, and he still couldn't get it right.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 09:53 am: Edit

Excellent post Chavi, having just completed the book, I find it astonishing so many outright dismiss what clearly has foundation.

By Perry (Perry) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 10:36 am: Edit

If I'm not mistaken the fellow who heads up the Swift boat veterans is an old Nixon hatchet man and was responsible for smearing the service record of McCain - a POW -- four years ago. The bottom line is that Kerry not just served but volunteered for service. No one knows where GWB was when he skipped out on his Guard duty. The main problem with the Bush presidency is that he's been sitting in the lap of Cheney (another brave soul who took five deferments) for too long. There's something terribly ironic about Bush and Cheney who evaded military service but have cavalierly sent young Americans into war in Iraq by exaggerating data from our intelligence agencies. These guys cannot be trusted. Not since the Nixon administration have we had a White House so bent on spinning a web of lies behind veils of secrecy.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

Perry, you are mistaken. O'Neil wrote the book and also debated Kerry on the Dick Cavitt show, but he did this on his own volition - he was the one who recognized that what Kerry was saying about atrocities was wrong and tried to get his side of the story known. In the process, Nixon became aware of his activities and supported him in his efforts. However, when he actually had to travel to NY for the TV show, he paid his own way.

O'Neill was not at all linked to the McCain "smearing" . The only linkage was that the same PR firm was used for both (but O'Neill was completely out of any political advocacy at the time). However, if you look at the actual "smearing" of McCain, it was not directed at his Vietnam record, it was directed at some of his voting record that could be construed against veterans. The fact is that a veterans organization that gives grades on voting records did not give McCain very high marks (I don't know exactly why not). So, was it a "smear" to attack someone's voting record? Certainly Kerry tries to make that the case when his voting record is attacked, he whines that his patriotism is being challenged.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

FundingFather:

"Whether the allegations about Bush are true or not is not really an issue."

It is clear that whether things are true or not is not an issue to you. About the SwiftVets stuff you regurgitate:

--The Bronze Star incident - you've got a guy who received a Bronze Star with a Combat V "for valor under enemy fire", whose commendation recites that he was under enemy fire, and whose boat had bullet holes in it at the end of the day, who now swears up and down that there was no enemy fire that day. You take that over the word of every crewman on Kerry's boat, the special forces guy who's life he saved, the multiple written statements in the military files, and witnesses on other boats as well. But then, that's just "the truth."

--The Silver Star incident -- You've got a guy who says he was there, with Kerry and (mumble mumble don't remember the other guy) describing an entirely different series of events from Kerry and the two other guys who all remember being the only three guys on the boat. Of course, you believe the guy nobody else saw. (It's a very small boat. And the actual crew all note that "We can count to three.") But then, it's just "the truth."

I could go on, but you get the gist. The right wing doesn't care about "the truth", because, as Fundingfather so aptly put it it's "not really an issue."

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

You have your facts mixed up:

1) The Bronze star - the fact is that there were no holes in Kerry's boat. That is one of the key pieces of physical evidence to question Kerry's account of the incident. Of all 5 boats, there were only three holes, and they were in Thurlow's boat who said that they had come from a day earlier. The other fact is that of all US and Vietnamese military people on those 5 boats, not a single person received a bullet wound. So, how can you possibly square the lack of any sort of physical evidence of enemy fire with Kerry's account of "whithering" fire coming from both shores up and down the river? I think it's time to use some logical reasoning skills.

2) The Silver Star incident - you have the wrong medal. You are thinking of Kerry's first purple heart. Read the account of the admiral who was there and you will get a better feel for who is telling the truth. His story is very credible. He was the one who devised the tactic of the mission and went on every one of them. If you doubt what the admiral is saying (and by the way, he is NOT a member of the SBVT organization) then how to you answer the fact that Kerry's very own journal entry from several days later mentions that they were all feeling cocky because they had not yet been under enemy fire?

What Bush did 35 years ago is not an issue and normally what Kerry did 35 years ago would not be an issue - except that Kerry made it so by using Vietnam as the centerpiece of his campaign. Kerry was the one who said if you want to judge me, do it based on what I did in Vietnam. Certainly you must see the difference.

By Perry (Perry) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit

If you judge one candidate based on what he did in Vietnam, then you should judge his opponent by the same standards. Kerry served in Vietnam and earned his decorations by the witness accounts of his crew; Bush metaphorically hid in the bushes (no pun intended) to evade service. From a strategic standpoint, that Bush operatives have attacked Kerry based on his service record would seem to be the height of stupidly. Kerry appeared to be taking a beating over this issue, but now it seemss that the tables have turned, which was predictable given Bush's own dubious service record. Regardless of whether the new batch of Guard records are fraudulent, the issue still casts Bush in an unflattering light. The polls are once again evening out, showing a close race. It will be interesting to see what happens.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 04:10 pm: Edit

If you judge one candidate based on what he did in Vietnam, then you should judge his opponent by the same standards.

Using that logic, how on earth did Clinton get elected over George HW Bush and Bob Dole?

BTW, I'm not judging Kerry by what he did in Vietnam. If you search the CC archives, you will see that I have said that what Kerry did was indeed brave (this was subsequently echoed by Bush who said that Kerry's service was more noble than his.) The only quibble that I have with his service is the exageration of certain events for political gain. If he had not nade such a big deal about it and had the SBVT's still run their ad, I would have said they were highly inappropriate - just as the charges against Bush are inappropriate. Just as the DUI charge against Bush the last time was inappropriate.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

And don't forget Bush smirking in his flight suit after they detoured the aircraft carrier on its way back from Iraq so he could pose in front of his "Mission Accomplished" sign.

I've read the account of the retired Admiral who says he remembers the details of this one boat trip - and whose story still conflicts with the three guys who all remember being the only 3 guys on the boat. "Logical reasoning skills" lead to the unavoidable conclusion that the retired Admiral has either misremembered or conflated two or more of the dozen or so separate skimmer missions he went on 35 years ago and created a false memory of one event which never happened. (Your theory - the three guys who went on just one skimmer mission together are all lying. "Logical reasoning skills?")

I went to the Swiftvets website with an open mind. I read all the "evidence". It's laughable. (Did you buy "Paul is dead", too?) I've read the official government documents, and the statements of the numerous veterans who actually **did** serve on Kerry's boats who (reluctantly) stepped forward to defend their own reputations which were being shamelessly shredded by the ideological zealots of the Swiftvets. The evidence that the swiftvets who accuse Kerry are mistaken, exagerating, and in some cases, deliberately misstating, is overwhelming. The "theories" the swiftvets spin to explain away the mountain of evidence against their accusations range from the strained to the out and out loony. Only a person blinded by ideology could fail to see that.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Only a person blinded by ideology could fail to see that.

I totally agree that there are those blinded by their ideology.

Just one last question that should haunt anyone who is so positive that the SBVT are liars: why has Kerry refused to sign form 180 to release all of his documents?

By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 04:32 pm: Edit

"documents fake or not, questions still remain regarding bush's service, and he, like many other affluent men during that time, got preferential treatment and was able to avoid the draft. and he did."

Amen to that. Documents or no documents, Bush's service record is still in doubt, and I personally think he used his position of wealth and privlidge to dodge the draft. And now he has the audacity to call upon the country's poor to fight daddy's wars.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit

The Swift Boat Liars have the same credibility as Kitty Kelley does at this point.

That is to say, none at all.

(She's the one that has the book out talking about President Bush's cocaine use at Camp David during his father's Presidency)

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 06:16 pm: Edit

"It was not unusual for such pilots to skip their last physical when they knew they were getting ready to turn in their wings."

It probably wasn't unusual for people to exaggerate slightly to get recognition and there were many, many veterans who came back to the U.S. after Vietnam and protested the war.

Kerry did both of those things. If what he did is bad enough for him to not get elected, then Bush should have never been voted in at all since he ignored a DIRECT order. In fact, he missed almost an entire year of service! No one has come forward to admit having seen him in Alabama that year.

"because there is always some favoritism towards officers, pilots, and guys who have an otherwise good record of service, to let him out a little early."

A good record? Really? He skipped almost an entire year of his service he volunteered for! If being AWOL for a year is representative of a "good record of service" then Kerry's exaggerations in getting medals are positively saintly!

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 06:46 pm: Edit

WHO FRICKEN' CARES?

We're talking about incidents that should play absolutely no part in our choosing of the next president! It was over 30 years ago, let's move past it (as an election "issue").

I really don't give a •••• if Bush got "legacy" deferment or whatever and didn't serve in Vietnam, and I also don't give a •••• what Kerry did during his tenure, it shouldn't make a difference, personality or issue wise.

Why are we debating this, it's a ridiulous issue. We cannot dwell in the past or judge a person based on what they did in their late teens-20s. Let them screw off like many people of that age do, your life is not determined by a couple years in your 20s.

Perhaps, but your staus as a CC poster is determined by the language that you choose to use.

<moderator>

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit

It's so funny that the liberals posting on this thread refuse to stick to the point. Kluge wants to bring up the "Mission Accomplised" thing, pretty much all of you want to point to the Swift Boat Ads....but you fail to see that that has nothing to do with what this post is all about. First of all, the swift boat ads are admitted opinion. You might think they are complete bs, but they are perfectly legitimate, they are opinions, and even the people on the ads themselves would tell you that. There is a big difference between that and the fabricated "factual" information Mr. Rather-bias and CBS used.

Also, for all of you who say "it doesn't really matter if they were made up, they are still true." You are completely wrong. Hey, if we believe someone murdered someone, we should make up information proving that he did and sentence them to death with faulty information...I mean, who cares if it's the truth, as long as it gets the results we are aiming for...right?

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 11:48 pm: Edit

"There is a big difference between that and the fabricated "factual" information Mr. Rather-bias and CBS used."

There isn't any proof that CBS fabricated the memos. It looks suspicious, but there is NO proof.

"Also, for all of you who say "it doesn't really matter if they were made up, they are still true."

Would you say that if someone saw the memos in Killian's files and recreated them because they couldn't take the originals? Many people would forgive CBS for their poor journalistic practice.

Liberals were ridiculed for Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy," so I think it's only fair that conservatives be questioned about their belief in the "vast left-wing media conspiracy".

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 12:05 am: Edit

I never said CBS fabricated the memos, but I will say they made very little attempt to verify them (okay, no attempt) because they fit so perfectly into their propoganda agenda.

Secondly, I would expect THE TRUTH from the media. How would you feel if the headline of 60 Minutes was something negative they could supposidly prove about Kerry, that, in actuality, they had no legitimate evidence? You would be mad, and rightfully so. They could have made it clear that the evidence no longer existed, and that is was merely what someone remembered existing...that would have been the honest thing to do.

Still, you liberals refuse to admit what Dan Rather did was WRONG...come on now...it's so simple. If something about Kerry had come in, they would have done everything they could to disprove it, but with Bush, they just made it a bit thicker, and slapped it on the air! And they CAN'T EVEN PROVE IT! Do you people realize this? The burden of proof is on the media! We should not have to pick through various reports, having to disprove or prove everything they give us, they should be giving us the proven truth!

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 12:10 am: Edit

Here's a decent analysis of why people think the CBS memo is forged: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213431/posts

The first reason is that of "kerning" or where every letter is NOT an equal distance apart. Modern computers automatically make letters "kerned", but typewriters availible in the 70s when the memos were written only used fonts in which each letter is of equal width (like the font used in the "Add a Message" box in this forum. This article makes mention of the letter "f" overhanging other letters on the memos, which is supposedly impossible to do on typewriters.

However, CBS admits that their documents are PHOTOCOPIES, which can and do distort the copy being made. The Internet news sources that broke the story are working with documents once more removed and distorted from the original documents. The "f" examples shown do not overhang by a great amount. Is it inconceivable that the multiple copies and Internet image compressions have distorted the letters and made a very FEW examples of what looks like kerning? The author of the article even admits the following:

"You can see from the image above, that the character combination "my" appears to be kerned in one document but not the other. However, I'm willing to write this off as being due to artifacts from the copying process."

So only examples that aren't kerned are artifacts? A one-sided argument.

Secondly, the author mentions the following:

"It seems that the only way these memos could have been written in 1972 would be on an IBM Selectric Composer, which was a desktop typesetting machine."

So the memos COULD have been written in 1972? Regardless of whether or not the Word documents match up "better" with the CBS memos, this proves that the memos COULD be authentic. The author also mentions that the memos would be "difficult" to create on the IBM Selectric. The point is that the documents COULD be authentic.

The Air Force began using the Selectric in 1969, so there could have been one in Texas in the National Guard in 1972. It's possible.

Other evidence the author gives supporting a forgery:

"Killian's wife and Son do not believe these memos are real, nor did they provide them to CBS or anyone else"

If we accept their testimony as proof of CBS wrongdoing, we should also accept what Killian's secretary says... that the memos were not typed by her but that they accurately represent Killian's mindset.

"Killian's wife said that he was not a good typist"

Although she obviously would know her husband well, this is not conclusive evidence that the memos are forgeries. Killian still could have typed them.

"The Composer may have cost more than a car in 1972"

The military owns many cars.

"CBS has produced no other documents from the Texas Air National Guard that are similar to these memos"

As the article makes note of, the Selectric was HIGHLY CUSTOMIZABLE. Therefore, if anyone else used different spacing settings or fonts, other documents would not be exactly identical.

"Why would CBS have copies of copies of copies of copies from documents that were for a man's personal files and would not have been reproduced?"

Because they could not take the originals. Perhaps they were stolen and copied and then returned.

"A Commander wouldn't order someone to get a physical prior to him being past due"

A Commander could order Bush to take a physical whenever he wanted Bush to take a physical, regardless of whether or not it is a "common practice".

The second part talks about whether or not the questions raised in the memos about Bush's service are accurate or not. Obviously this well be much harder to prove than whether or not the documents themselves are forgeries.

Anyone purporting to know about the accuracy of the CONTENT of the memos is just as much engaging in hearsay as are the Swift Vets, Kitty Kelley, and the wackos that think Clinton murdered Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

From THE NEW YORK TIMES

September 18, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

A War Hero or a Phony?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

So is John Kerry a war hero or a medal-grabbing phony?

Each time that I've written about President Bush's dalliance with the National Guard, conservative readers have urged me to scrutinize the accusations against Mr. Kerry. After doing so over the last week, here's where I come out:

Did Mr. Kerry volunteer for dangerous duty? Not as much as his campaign would like you to believe. The Kerry Web site declares, "As he was graduating from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam - because, as he later said, 'It was the right thing to do.' "

In fact, as Mr. Kerry was about to graduate from Yale, he was inquiring about getting an educational deferment to study in Europe. When that got nowhere, he volunteered for the Navy, which was much less likely to involve danger in Vietnam than other services. After a year on a ship in the ocean, Mr. Kerry volunteered for Swift boats, but at that time they were used only in Vietnam's coastal waters. A short time later, the Swift boats were assigned exceptionally dangerous duties up Vietnamese rivers. "When I signed up for the Swift boats, they had very little to do with the war,'' Mr. Kerry wrote in 1986, adding, "I didn't really want to get involved in the war."

Did Mr. Kerry get his first Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound? That's the accusation of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who say that the injury came (unintentionally) from a grenade that Mr. Kerry himself fired at Viet Cong. In fact, nobody knows where the shrapnel came from, and it's possible that the critics are right. It's not certain that the Viet Cong were returning fire. But the only other American on the boat in a position to see anything, Bill Zaldonis (who says he voted for Mr. Bush in 2000) told me, "He was hurt, and I don't think it was self-inflicted."

Did Mr. Kerry deserve his second and third Purple Hearts? There's not much dispute that the second was merited. As for the third one, the Swift Boat Veterans' claim that he received it for a minor injury he got while blowing up food supplies to keep them from the enemy. But documents and witness accounts show that he received a shrapnel wound when South Vietnamese troops blew up rice stores, and an injured arm in a mine explosion later that day.

Did Mr. Kerry deserve his Bronze Star? Yes. The Swift Boat Veterans claim that he was not facing enemy fire when he rescued a Green Beret, Jim Rassmann, but that is contradicted by those were there, like William Rood and Mr. Rassmann (a Republican). In fact, Mr. Rassmann recommended Mr. Kerry for a Silver Star.

Did Mr. Kerry deserve his Silver Star? Absolutely. He earned it for responding to two separate ambushes in a courageous and unorthodox way, by heading straight into the gunfire. Then he pursued one armed fighter into the jungle and shot him dead. According to Fred Short, a machine gunner who saw the event, the fighter was an adult (not the half-naked teenager cited by the Swift Boat Veterans) who was preparing to launch a grenade at the boat. "Kerry went into harm's way to save the lives of the guys on the boat," Mr. Short told me. "If he hadn't done that, I am absolutely positive I would not be here today." Mr. Kerry's commander said he had wanted to give him an even higher honor, the Navy Cross, but thought it would take too long to process.

Did Mr. Kerry exaggerate his exploits? Yes. For example, he has often said over the years that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia as part of the secret war there. Others who served with him confirm that on Christmas Eve 1968 (not Christmas Day) he got very close to the border, and possibly even strayed across it. But it doesn't seem to have been, as Mr. Kerry has suggested, a deliberate incursion into Cambodia.

What do those who served with him say? Some who served on other boats have called Mr. Kerry a hypochondriac self-promoter. But every enlisted man who was with Mr. Kerry on various boats when he won Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars says he deserved them. All praise his courage and back his candidacy. "I was there for two of the Purple Hearts and the Bronze and Silver Stars, and he earned every one of them," said Delbert Sandusky, in a typical comment. "He saved our lives."

The bottom line? Mr. Kerry has stretched the truth here and there, but earned his decorations. And the Swift Boat Veterans, contradicted by official records and virtually everyone who witnessed the incidents, are engaging in one of the ugliest smears in modern U.S. politics.

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit

Although there is a lot of unconfirmed info in this post, I find it interesting:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213937/posts

It's interesting that nothing there is a proven fact...

People who believe that these documents are forgeries are best summed up in this way:

"If we say something loud enough and often enough, eventually it will become true"

By Poetsheart (Poetsheart) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 01:59 am: Edit

The SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD is indeed, the apparent lack of journalistic integrity demonstrated by Dan Rather, the 60 Minutes II staff, and by extension, the entire CBS News organization. The 60 Minutes report in question should be disturbing to anyone who values the journalistic ideal of absolute (verifiable) truth-in-reporting. Personally, I'm extremely disappointed that this glaring disregard for an elementary standard of reporting was perpetrated by a "Lion" of 60 Minutes, an show that many would argue has been the standard bearer for television journalism for more than a quarter century. And lest someone trot out Fox New's reputation for journalistic bias, I would point out that this was not merely a case of bias, but one of document fabrication given legitimacy, not by Fox, or any other news service, but by CBS. Fox News does not, and probably never will enjoy the level of journalistic respect that CBS New has claimed over the years. For better or worse, CBS News is held to a higher standard, because they've cultivated a reputation for such standards from day one. The evidence is overwhelming that the documents in question are fabrications. Whether or not they reflect a "truth" about the nature of G.W. Bush's National Guard Service (or lack thereof) is immaterial to the subject of this thread .

Personally I'm not interested in the further rehashing of the service record of either candidate. Entirely too much time has already been devoted to doing so, and this election should be about SO MUCH MORE.

By Kissy (Kissy) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

Bill Cinton not only received a service deferrment, but openly denounced the US while overseas. He became president and authorized bombing missions in the middle east, sent troops to Bosnia, Haiti, eastern Africa and other hotbeds of trouble, none of which posed a direct threat to the US. I don't recall Clinton supporters taking issue regarding those deployments.

As for the Dan Rather saga, his news producer had been working on the Bush/National Guard story for 4 years. The fact that their charges are based on memos which are most likely fabricated speaks volumes.

By Patient (Patient) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

I tend to agree with Poetsheart. I don't really see what re-hashing service records really has to do with the state of the country or even who is better qualified to lead. As a member of the generation that went to war in Vietnam, I know that everyone who possibly could figure out a way to avoid service in that war, did. Clinton and Bush included! (I had a high school physics teacher who had gained 100 pounds in order to get a medical waiver or whatever you call it to avoid being drafted).

I also agree that the state of the country's journalism is pretty scary--on both sides, maybe.

Question: for those of you who consider yourselves relatively open-minded, what news sources do you consider most trustworthy and unbiased these days? I remember from high school days that it was the Christian Science Monitor...

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 12:25 pm: Edit

"I know that everyone who possibly could figure out a way to avoid service in that war, did."

Yes.... even the most vocal supporters of action in Iraq today... the so-called "Chickenhawks"

"what news sources do you consider most trustworthy and unbiased these days?"

On television, since we are discussing CBS and FOX, the best actual news source is still CNN. Regardless of whether or not you think Inside Politics and Crossfire are biased, CNN is usually first on major breaking news. They have reporters all over the world, and they aren't usually incorrect even when they are first.

Fox and MSNBC, on the other hand, are more about analysis and opinion... and yelling and screaming at each other. Some people find that more entertaining than news.

In print, Roll Call (the Capitol Hill journal) is unbiased, IMO.

By Patient (Patient) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 01:00 pm: Edit

I like NPR and public television (the newshour), for example. Print, I'm not so sure. I read the NY Times because I love the quality of much of the writing, but it does have a liberal bent.

By Poetsheart (Poetsheart) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

I rely on NPR and Public Television for their tendency to plumb the depths of the issues and present information in a fairly unbiased and professional manner. CNN is particularly good for minute by minute reporting on breaking news, and lately, I've been tuning into C-Span quite a bit. But sometimes, I like to check out what the fringe at either end of the political spectrum are saying on the issues. I DON'T trust them to give me much in the way of the unvarnished truth, but I do trust that they will help me to ascertain the full spectrum of prevailing political opinion.

Has anyone ever listened to Michael Savage (a truly scarey man!)? A couple of years ago, my car radio went on the fritz, and was only capable of receiving AM signals. Conservative talk radio has the clearest signals on the band, so I ended up settling there and listening in when I couldn't stand driving in silence. Rush Limbaugh, I found, well...laughable. But often I found myself literally screaming at Michael Savage like as I drove down the highway. People passing me must have though I was out of my mind. LOL! But I have to admit that at times, even he made me shut up and think for a few minutes...

Poetsheart (AKA, Valpal)

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 02:14 am: Edit

See. I think there is one very large fact that all are missing when discussing this issue.

No one from the Bush campaign has denounced the report. They are not calling the accusations false and they are not doing anything publicly to denounce the report.

Also, the documents that were technically forged were only documents that already existed and were retyped by the secretary. The documents do exist and are on file, the main problem is that they aren't the "official" versions of them. Nothing was doctored or made to be false. The documents are only republications of the originals.

Sorry to burst your bubble and that Dan Rather is really a liberal "evil doer" who wants to do anything he can to bring down the President. That is not the case. Nothing was false and Dan Rather has done this country a great service by showing who the President really was back in the 1970's....although who cares about Vietnam!!

LETS GET BACK TO THE ISSUES AT HAND!!!

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit

Check out this article in the Washington Post about CBS's journalistic practices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18.html

Jauq1, there is no such thing as a "technicially forged" document. No one has said that such a memo existed and was merely retyped by the secretary. If you have the info, please show it. There is NO evidence that the "The documents do exist and are on file, the main problem is that they aren't the "official" versions of them." The White House isn't in the postion to denounce a document supposedly in someone's private file. CBS took the White House's silence as a license to rely on forgeries. I think CBS was blinded by its agenda.

By Patient (Patient) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 10:49 am: Edit

These 2 paragraphs from the article in the Washington Post suggest something in between your two interpretations:

"CBS got hold of Knox and had her on a plane to New York on Wednesday. Rather started the hour-long interview at 4 p.m., and while Knox said the underlying story was true -- that Killian had made such comments about Lt. Bush -- she insisted the memos were fake. Mapes had three hours to edit the interview for that night's "60 Minutes."

As they continue their investigation into whether they were hoaxed, CBS officials have begun shifting their public focus from the memos themselves to their underlying allegations about the president. Rather said that if the memos were indeed faked, "I'd like to break that story." But whatever the verdict on the memos, he said, critics "can't deny the story."

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 11:01 am: Edit

Jaug1, are you serious? Dan Rather has a well documented history of being anti Republican. Even if your claim that the documents were just recreated were true, which I highly doubt, you think that's OK? Do you think perhaps you are blinded by the liberal light?

By Perry (Perry) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 11:53 am: Edit

I'm afraid Rather is right, critics can't deny the allegations. There have been too many sources that have said G. Bush ducked Guard duty. Bush hasn't changed much in 30 years. On the stump he's has evaded the dismal truth about Iraq, spinning an optimistic image that all is going well, despite a recent internal intelligence report that paints a grim picture of the Iraqi situation and mounting U.S. casualties. Like the intelligence reports he exaggerated before the war, now he ignores the latest reports that suggest a worsening situation. This, together with his irresponsible handling of the economy by running up sky-rocketing budget deficits which will signficantly and adversly affect the economy down the road. Here's an administration that turned an enormous budget surplus with all of its attendent benefits into a massive deficit. Bush is the most untrustworthy president since Nixon.

By Poetsheart (Poetsheart) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:24 am: Edit

Why has this thread turned into yet another Bush Bashing, when the topic is CLEARLY ABOUT JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY, or in this case, the lack thereof, demonstrated by Dan Rather and the 60 Minutes II news staff? If Fox News had presented fabricated documents, calling John Kerry's Vietname Service Record into question, would they not justifiably incur the most strident of criticism from the left for their shoddy journalism? And why are lies and fabrications such damnable deeds when perpetrated by clearly politically motivated groups such as, "Swift Boat", but somehow justified when used under the guise of "journalism" by the likes of CBS News, or, "documentary" by the likes of Michael Moore?

Whether it is true or not that George W. Bush used his daddy's power and influence to dodge service in Vietname, whether or not he further abused such power in order to shortchange the Texas Air National Guard, whether or not his Commanding Officer did indeed hold him in low regard---none of these things justifies the passing of fabricated documents in the "service of truth telling", for surly, the truth has been out there for all to see for a very long time, and in no way does it need corroborating lies.

Poetsheart (AKA, Valpal)

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:44 am: Edit

^^^^Fully agreed.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 02:02 am: Edit

Candi, I admire you so much. If I read your posts right, you are a URM from a terrible NYC high school. Yet somehow you have the most intelligent, balanced view of any student on this site. You are always nice but to the point. You make sense at all times. Can I look you up when I visit Yale?

By Poetsheart (Poetsheart) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 02:17 am: Edit

I second that!

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 02:25 am: Edit

I hope Candi has a full scholarship at Yale. To me that would say that they are using money wisely. You kind of wonder if some of the other posters here are at equal schools. It would tell me a lot.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 02:28 am: Edit

Am I allowed to ask where Perry. Jaug1 and Kluge are at school?

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 03:06 am: Edit

Annieivy,

Thanks a lot...you sure can. I receive the full capacity of need-based aid available from Yale ($0 in parental contribution, but with self-help requirements).

I think Perry is an adult...

By Simba (Simba) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 09:14 am: Edit

Candi: Help me understand this. I agree that most of your posts are thoughtful and to the point. From your various posts it seems that you have benefited quite well with the social programs we have in place - a liberal philosophy (Fofrgive me if I have reached the wrong conclusion). However, you seem to be swinging to the party who oppose the very programs that has enriched you. Help me understand.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 09:43 am: Edit

"...you have benefited quite well with the social programs we have in place..."

I'm going to thank you for that question, Simba, since you posed it so politely and thoughtfully. I'm assuming you mean Medicaid and Section-8, since we are not on welfare. I don't believe that Republicans oppose these programs as much as they wish to decrease reliance on them. For example, we used to receive welfare, but with the newer, stringent guidelines, my Mom actually made too much money (still less than 10K, however). A combination of two things kept my Mom from making more money: 1)lack of education and 2)between my sister and I, we've been hospitalized more than a dozen times (between that and doctors' appointments, it became difficult for her to hold down a full-time job, she took what she could get). We still managed to get by, however. I supported that reform. My mom, my sister, and I are all currently enrolled in college, so we are utilizing social programs as they are intended...To give us a leg up so we don't need them in the future. In the next five years, we will probably no longer qualify. That's a good thing.

In my neighborhood (and I suppose this applies universally), there are two types of poor people that I see. There are those who fight tooth-and-nail to better the lives of themselves and their children...And there are those who develop a fatalistic attitude and make few, if any, attempts to improve their situation. The government has to work hard to support the former in their quest while not catering to the latter.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:05 am: Edit

I think Simba is making an assumption I hear all of the time. He may be saying that all Republicans would shut down programs to help the needy. I run a food distribution center and I'm constantly told all Government support will go away if Republicans remain in power! People really seem to believe this. The thinking, Candi, goes that Yale would only have rich white kids and your family would be on the street but for Democrats.

By Simba (Simba) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit

Well not long ago there was a thread on CC where Republican visitors were advocating turning over all kind of social programs to voluntary contributions from individuals and private sector. The reasoning was, give tax breaks and that in turn will increase charitable donations.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Candi1567: Your points are good and well taken. Also, you have more credibility to speak on these matters since you have actually used these services. I agree that social programs are good but need to be monitored for abuse and reformed to truly be used as stepping stones rather than lifestyles. I have definitely seen welfare abused.
However, I take a little pause at your comment about either lower income people either fighting tooth and nail or having a fatalistic attitude. It sounds like you had great parents who had an excellent work ethic and taught you to work towards success. Not all children in low income neighborhoods have parents like that. Unfortunately, it is a terrible cycle. So, some of these people spent their childhood watching fatalistic behavior or lazy complacent behavior etc. modeled for them. The power of 14 to 18 years of only certain kinds of role models is powerful. Also, their parents may have been giving them no encouragment, using government money for personal luxury items etc. I have seen this in reality. THose kinds of parents are the very reason many of us think welfare needs to be reformed. But at the same time, remeber that the children are the victims and it isn't as easy to "fight tooth and nail" when you didn't have encouraging parents who modeled good habits.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit

"Well not long ago there was a thread on CC where Republican visitors were advocating turning over all kind of social programs to voluntary contributions from individuals and private sector."

Sounds more libertarian than Republican.

Squidd,

Trust me, I've seen these scenarios that you are describing (parents with poor work ethic) and I've seen two outcomes for such a situation. For some, it actually gives them impetus to not be like their parents. Others simply adopt the attitude. In the end, it all boils down to personal responsibility (a concept that I'm in love with). I've seen industrious parents produce unbelievably lazy kids and vice versa. It all boils down to the individual. You can start off early in life as a "victim", but ultimately it is your own attitudes and approach towards life that will determine if you will stay a "victim".

So basically, the fatalistic vs. optimistic attitude on the part of the individual is where the dichotomy still stands.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit

Candi16547: Beleive me, I agree with you in a lot of ways. I am a HUGE advocate of personal responsibility. But, I think we need to have some compassion in this society. IT's not a black and white issue. FOr the most part, we are on the same page, it is absolutely possible for people to choose to have attitudes that help them overcome any obstacle. But it is harder for some than others. What if you were never taught or never saw an example of a good attitude? I've worked in both public schools and social services and I used to have a much tougher attitude. But looking at some of these younger people (teens, young adults) and simply saying, "Too bad for you...you have a bad attitude and that's why you fail" is neither helpful or ethical. THis country has become so dog eat dog and that is not good for anyone. We can find a balance between capitalism and individual work and responsibility/and community and lending a helping hand to those who haven't had the same opportunities and resources we have. Once again, children are innocent victims when they are brought up in certain atmospheres (parents) and to callously state that they choose to be victims is a bit unfair. IT isn't that black and white.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Squiddd,

It basically comes down to this: We know that some people are born "victims"...Do they therefore have to stay "victims"? Do you subscribe to determinism?

I mean, something that some people are born without certain resources is like preaching to the choir to me. I see people living it every day. Knowing that I've come from it and still wound up with this mentality shows a lot, in my estimation.

By Xdad (Xdad) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Candi is indeed a wonderful poster. I also love to read her posts.

Yale is so fortunate to have her, and so is CC.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Thanks, Xdad!

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Resources do not only come in the form of tangible "things", it's also about your upbringing and the people around you. Your excellent parents were a resource for you. Look, I don't like the victim complex either. But there is a middle ground between the amazing homeless girl who ended up at Harvard (true story) and the kid who decides to give up at 12 and starts doing and dealing drugs. There are those who are working hard to overcome their background, but have a broken spirit and continue to hit obstacles in the form of prejudice and what not. YOu only know your experience, a very valid one at that. But lending a helping hand to some is more than just "things", as I said before, it can also be positive encouragement which enables those with a broken spirit to be more willing to work, get results, feel confidence and accomplishment, and therefore work even harder, breeding success. Hearing the, "I did it so why can't you" argument over and over again is not helpful. I'm really not disagreeing with you, only hoping that you, and others, remember that everyone's experience is different and we need to try to have empathy towards others. That doesn't mean giving away free passes or doing their work for them, it just means creating an environment where they feel more safe trying.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 05:30 pm: Edit

"Resources do not only come in the form of tangible "things", it's also about your upbringing and the people around you."

I don't think you got my point, fully. When I talk about my environment I also mean of those around me, not just myself. I know tons of people with drug-dependent, abusive parents. My father also is a alcoholic and I witnessed him physically abuse my mother before she left.

I don't have a "I can do it, why can't they?" attitude. I'm saying with the experience that I have with individuals that face extreme poverty, abusive parents, etc., (because they live all around me, went to my high school, so on and so forth) I see definite patterns that emerge. These patterns I see are within the mindset of the individual. I'm saying that because I have the vantage point with which to make judgements on these patterns because I have witnessed them so intimately.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit

getting back to the topic, CBS just officially apologized and the guy who sent these documents said he was "sorry for misleading CBS"

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Yes, I saw that on Yahoo! News...

Sorry for having diverged so greatly from the OT, which is an important one.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Candi1657, I am glad you diverted from the orignal post. I had no idea about your background and achievements. You truly represent the American Dream -- anyone can rise to the top. You are there and heading higher. Every time you take a test, I hope you will consider me one of your silent fans cheering you on.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Candi1657: And, having been a social service worker as well as a teacher within public schools in low socio-economic neighborhoods, I too have had an intimate view of these situations, not from the same perspective as you, but from a valid perception. I certainly didn't mean to make you feel attacked and I shouldn't represented the "if I can do it, why can't you" attitude as yours. I was only taking your statement, which put people from more difficult backgrounds in only two categories (black and white generalization in my humble opinion)and discussing other views I have seen generate from those kinds of thoughts. You are absolutely right that certain patterns emerge in those situations. Cliches are cliches for a reason. But what I took issue with was your statement that seemed to make people one or the other. That is just not the case. I absolutely respect your view and think it has great validity. I would just hope that you would understand that your experiences (yours and those around you that you witnessed) are not the end all be all. There are situations and circumstances you might not have encountered and I would hope you would acknowledge the fair view of one who has encountered these situations from a different vantage point ie: as teacher and counselor to these children, teens, and families.
No hard feelings, OK?

By Kissy (Kissy) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 11:16 am: Edit

Candi- I've been thinking about you and hoping all is going well at Yale. I'm glad to hear that your mother went ahead with her plans to attend college. HOw is your nephew doing? Please add my name to the list of the Candi Fan Club- you're truly an inspiration and great things lie ahead for you!

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 09:16 am: Edit

So let me get this straight.

1. Dan Rather believed in the story he was getting from trusted sources (his producers and reporters in the field) who depended largely on false information.

2. He then stood by that story even as external and contrary evidence mounted. He was then slow to admit a mistake. Some have even argued that Rather was slow to accept reality because it conflicts with his personal political leanings.

President Bush did the exact same thing except in his case he was dealing with WMDs.

Please explain the difference cause I guess I'm too dumb to see it.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit

Please. I need help here.

By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit

and no body got killed and maimed by Don Rather's misleading facts

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Squiddd,

No hard feelings. But you have yet to provide an alternate mindset than the two I've mentioned. You've discussed different outcomes for the same mindset, and that definitely can be true, but in my mind it is the mindset that counts.

Kissy,

My nephew is doing much better, thank you very much. He's stopped having digestive problems. He still has some difficulty breathing, but we think it may be due to asthma, because so many people in our family have it. But overall, he is doing much better!

By Kissy (Kissy) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Candi- so glad to hear he's well!

By Awesome (Awesome) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 01:45 am: Edit

I'd vote for Candice as president any day. She really is inspiring. Yale is definitely lucky to have her.

Xdad is Xiggi's father? Never knew.

By Sheeprun (Sheeprun) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Bye bye Annieivy aka Mom101...

<moderator>