GOP Response to CBS Announcement

[Annie]

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4719

Monday, September 20, 2004
RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie Statement on CBS


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Christine Iverson
202-863-8614
Washington, DC--Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie issued the following statement on CBS’s admission today that memos regarding the President’s National Guard service are not real.

“We accept CBS's apology for a breach of the journalistic standards that provide the American people confidence in news organizations, but some disturbing questions remain unanswered.

“CBS has now answered questions about the authenticity of the documents but questions remain surrounding who created the documents, who provided them to CBS and if Senator Kerry's supporters, Party committee, or campaign played any role.

“Did Bill Burkett, Democrat activist and Kerry campaign supporter, who passed information to the DNC, work with Kerry campaign surrogate Max Cleland? Did Bill Burkett's talks with ‘senior’ Kerry campaign officials include discussions of the now discredited documents? Was the launch of the Democrat National Committee's Operation Fortunate Son designed with knowledge of the faked forged memos? Terry McAuliffe said yesterday that no one at the DNC or Kerry campaign, ‘had anything to do with the preparations of the documents,’ but what about the distribution or dissemination?

“In an effort to regain the trust of the American people CBS should not only investigate the process that led to the use of these documents but they should identify immediately those engaged in possible criminal activity who attempted to use a news organization to affect the outcome of a Presidential election in its closing days.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Signup for customized GOP.com email at: https://www.gop.com/secure/EmailSignup.aspx

 

[HGROKIT]

Accept the apology and move on I say. Don't stoop to conspiracy theororizing about the DNC or Kerry's campaign. Let the story stand on its own merits and rise above the crap for crying out loud.

 

[musicman]

Accept the apology and move on I say. Don't stoop to conspiracy theororizing about the DNC or Kerry's campaign. Let the story stand on its own merits and rise above the crap for crying out loud.

I would agree with you that taking the high road is the better course - if we lived in a world where reason prevails. We live in no such world, HGROKIT. The liberal elite have taken it away from us, and we must accept that - for now. There IS no high road - not in a political climate where kindness is (successfully) portrayed as weakness, and honor, a quaint, useless anachronism.

Check out Kathianne's thread, "Talking of Suicidal". The DNC is going to use these fraudulent documents IN AN ANTI-BUSH VIDEO - AS IF NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!!!! There is no END to their lies!!! The only way to stop them is to drive a stake through their hearts - twice!

No - let's not make the mistake of taking the high road - not here, not now. Let's unravel the hideous truth, wherever it takes us, until there is not a rock left for these lying bastards to crawl under. Then, maybe, in better times, we can once again start thinking in terms of kindness, honor, and the high road.

 

[HGROKIT]

but why add to it by starting or buying into a conspiracy theory? Now that the story has broken, everyone will see the media and the left for what they really are - they might not admit it but see it none the less.

For everyone else to continually perpetuate it when they have already shot themselves in the foot is just dumb.

If some one calls me a fat slob and everyone else can see that is false, then what is the point of me making issue of it. If I AM a fat slob, then there is no point in arguing it because it would be true.

 

[dmp]

but why add to it by starting or buying into a conspiracy theory? Now that the story has broken, everyone will see the media and the left for what they really are - they might not admit it but see it none the less.

For everyone else to continually perpetuate it when they have already shot themselves in the foot is just dumb.

If some one calls me a fat slob and everyone else can see that is false, then what is the point of me making issue of it. If I AM a fat slob, then there is no point in arguing it because it would be true.

...the link is there - a Bushy stepped down because he had less contact, or similar contact w/ the SwiftBoaters, than the Kerry guy had w/ the Memo writer.

 

[musicman]

but why add to it by starting or buying into a conspiracy theory? Now that the story has broken, everyone will see the media and the left for what they really are - they might not admit it but see it none the less.

For everyone else to continually perpetuate it when they have already shot themselves in the foot is just dumb.

If some one calls me a fat slob and everyone else can see that is false, then what is the point of me making issue of it. If I AM a fat slob, then there is no point in arguing it because it would be true.

All of which would make sense in a world where sanity drove the dissemination of information. Such is not the case, and hasn't been the case for over thirty years. Despite the inroads made by Fox, talk radio, and the blogosphere, liberals still exercise a frightening amount of control over our culture, and a largely uninformed, apathetic public remains vulnerable to their sway. No less a social engineer than Adolf Hitler once said, "The endless repitition of a demonstrable lie will turn it into a demonstrable truth" - and no one seems to have learned that lesson better than Dan Rather.

Were it not for the dogged tenacity of the blogosphere, this story would have died long ago, buried under an avalanche of self-serving garbage like, "Well, the documents were wrong, but the STORY was right". You know that. You've SEEN it. "Let the public see that they've shot themselves in the foot, and drop it already", some might say. I strongly disagree. The LMM are past masters at this sort of thing. Give them enough time, and the oppurtunity to spout their lies unchallenged, and you'll hear people on the street saying, "Damn that Bush - shooting poor Dan Rather in the foot like that".

No, I say. HELL no! Pour it on!

 

[Bonnie]

but why add to it by starting or buying into a conspiracy theory? Now that the story has broken, everyone will see the media and the left for what they really are - they might not admit it but see it none the less.

For everyone else to continually perpetuate it when they have already shot themselves in the foot is just dumb.

If some one calls me a fat slob and everyone else can see that is false, then what is the point of me making issue of it. If I AM a fat slob, then there is no point in arguing it because it would be true.

Because there may be a bigger story than just oops CBS screwed up.......If there is a link between Kerry campaign and the documents, that amounts to criminal liability (fraud).........Don't think for a moment if the situation were reversed it would be handled any better. this is about so much more than egg on Rather's face.

Right now CBS launched it's own investigation, and it looks like Mary Mapes is the first one hung out on the line............They cannot be allowed to get away with this. This scandal strikes at the very heart of Yellow Journalism, and the media's desire to manipulate an election based on lies and fabrications and they finally got caught...........THAT'S HUGE.....!!!!

 

[nycflasher]

Accept the apology and move on I say. Don't stoop to conspiracy theororizing about the DNC or Kerry's campaign. Let the story stand on its own merits and rise above the crap for crying out loud.

My initial reaction to this, and you know I'm a Kerry supporter, is that unless they have ANY proof it's pretty lame to go blaming Kerry for Rather and CBS's mistake. Just like it's lame to accuse Bush of going AWOL without proof.

Just for the record:
Cheney bought his way out. Clinton went to Canada. Bush went to the National Guard and records are missing regarding his service. John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam. His leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts.

It's easy to see why the GOP is trying to discredit Kerry's service and even suggesting that his campaign may have fabricated documents.

 

[nycflasher]

Accept the apology and move on I say. Don't stoop to conspiracy theororizing about the DNC or Kerry's campaign. Let the story stand on its own merits and rise above the crap for crying out loud.

Exactly, I don't think CBS' major faux pas hurt Bush's credibility. Lashing out at Kerry for something there is no good reason to think he was involved with will.

 

[Annie]

Exactly, I don't think CBS' major faux pas hurt Bush's credibility. Lashing out at Kerry for something there is no good reason to think he was involved with will.

Nice try at spin. Not going to work. Lockhart called Burkett. Burkett called Cleland. Fortunate Son campaign began at same time as the report. Tampering/Misrepresenting federal records/files is a federal crime.

 

[musicman]

Nice try at spin. Not going to work. Lockhart called Burkett. Burkett called Cleland. Fortunate Son campaign began at same time as the report. Tampering/Misrepresenting federal records/files is a federal crime.

I agree - a VERY nice try. All in all, I give it a 9.6. I had to subtract a few tenths for flawed timing. In the pre-blogosphere era, it would have garnered a perfect 10.

 

[Annie]

Not all what it may seem, many links at the site:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2004/09/breaking_news_c.html

September 22, 2004
Breaking News: CBS Names Independent Panel
Fox News TV just had a breaking news announcement on Rathergate. (Drudge has it, although I beat him. Nothing yet on Fox's web site.) Dick Thornburgh was named to a a special panel appointed by to CBS to investigate the Rathergate story. At first blush, naming Thornburgh looks like an attempt to avoid partisanship. After all Thornburgh is a Republican who served as Attorney General under Reagan and Bush, as well as Governor of Pennsylvania.

But there is a curious wrinkle to the story; namely, the history of litigation between Thornburgh and senior Bush aide Karl Rove. In my post Karl Rove's Lawsuit Against Dick Thornburgh (Part I), I explained:

In my Agency and Partnership class today, I'm teaching Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh, 39 F.3d 1273 (5th Cir.1994). Back when Richard Thornburgh ran for the U.S. Senate, and lost, Thornburgh left behind an unpaid bill of almost $170,000 owed to Karl Rove & Co. for services in conducting a direct mail campaign. It is clear that the authorized campaign committee—the "Thornburgh for Senate Committee"—had hired Rove & Co. and that it was liable. Unfortunately, the committee was broke. So Rove sued Thornburgh personally, seeking to hold Thornburg personally liable on the debt. The court first concluded that the committee was an unincorporated association. As a member of an unincorporated association, Thornburgh would be liable only if he assented to the contract. Because Thornburgh had not personally assented to the contract, the case turned on whether Thornburgh’s longtime aide Murray Dickman, in entering into a the contractual relationship with Rove & Co., acted as Thornburgh’s agent and within the scope of his authority. If so, Dickman's assent to the contract would be binding on Thornburgh. Held: Thornburgh is liable. Because Dickman is Thornburgh’s agent, Dickman’s assent to the contract constitutes assent by Thornbugh.
I then ask my students this question:
According to former President Ronald Reagan's famous dictum, the 11th Commandment reads, "Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Why then is a GOP operative like Rove suing one of the party's most prominent candidates? What downside, if any, is there to a suit by Rove?
In Part II of this series of posts, I further explain:
I use [this question] to impress upon students that the decision to litigate is ultimately a business one rather than a purely legal one. In some settings, you may win the legal battle, but lose the business war. As we see it, Rove faced the following trade-off: On the one hand, suing Thornburgh might give Rove a reputation as a tough guy with whom it is a bad idea to trifle. If so, future clients might think twice before welshing on a debt. In addition, if the suit is successful, Rove would recover a not inconsiderable sum. On the other hand, suing a party bigwig might alienate potential clients and thus cost Rove future business. In trying to sort out whether Rove made a wise decision, I note that Mark McKinnon, a former Democratic political consultant, reportedly calls Rove the “Bobby Fischer of politics. He not only sees the board, he sees about 20 moves ahead.”
So I can't help but wonder whether Thornburgh and Rove have ever kissed and made up? And, if not, did CBS know that Thornburgh had a history of bad blood with a key aide to Dubya? Would it surprise you, in light of what we now know?

Update: A 2003 New Yorker profile of Rove mentions his fight with Thornburgh:

As aggressively as Rove played in politics generally, he played even more aggressively inside the particular subculture of Republican political consulting. After a special 1991 election in Pennsylvania, Rove sued Richard Thornburgh, the former governor of Pennsylvania and former Attorney General, for not paying his Karl Rove + Company bill after he lost the race even though the Republican National Committee, worried that the suit would make it hard to recruit good candidates, urged Rove to back off, and, when he wouldn't, hired Kenneth Starr to write an amicus brief on Thornburgh's behalf-Rove put Thornburgh through the humiliation of a trial in Austin and won the case.
No mention that they kissed and made up. And did you notice the bit about "the humiliation of a trial in Austin."

 

[onedomino]

Nice try at spin. Not going to work. Lockhart called Burkett. Burkett called Cleland. Fortunate Son campaign began at same time as the report. Tampering/Misrepresenting federal records/files is a federal crime.

This is correct. The story needs to be followed to its conclusion; especially if it means criminal prosecution. Not because of vindictiveness. Rather, if a crime was committed (not just a dirty trick) in order to influence an election, then it cannot be tolerated.

 

[musicman]

Re: "About the Independent Investigation"(Kathianne):


ROFLMAO!!!

How many more times is the blogosphere going to have to catch CBS with it's hand in the cookie jar before somebody over there smartens up??!!