Accurate Forgeries?

The latest saga in the 60 Minutes documents drama is that Marian Knox, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian secretary tells CBS that the documents appear to be forgeries but they accurately reflect the views of Kilian.

So, like NBC who in 1993 rigged explosives to make a truck explosion story on Dateline look better, CBS may have used fake documents to solidify a story. However how many people are going to remember that the story is accurate, that George Bush used connections to get out of service and that he didn't fulfill his commitments, that he went AWOL?

Knox's claim is backed up by a report in USA Today that said "Another former Texas National Guard officer, Richard Via, also said that the documents were fakes but that their content reflected questions about Bush that were discussed at the time in the hangar at Ellington Air Force Base, where he had a desk next to Killian's."

Conservatives will point to Knox's statements that the documents are fake but will they also include her statement that the information is accurate? One can only assume they will credit her with the fake claim but call her misinformed on the accuracy claim.

Dan Rather: George Bush's MVP

There is a lot of talk on the Internet on the accuracies of the documents Dan Rather and CBS used as supporting evidence in a story on whether George Bush completed his required duty in the Texas Air National Guard.

The CBS story came out at the same time serious and exhaustive stories by the Associated Press and Boston Globe came out questioning many of the assertions Bush had made over the years regarding his service. The CBS story appeared to be the coup de grace.

Instead, questions over some of the documents have dominated the story, eliminating any discussion of the rest of the story. For that the White House must be very pleased with Dan Rather. A perceived villain of the right, Rather can now be the poster boy for alleged liberal media while providing needed cover for Bush to duck the story.

So a series of stories that show Bush did not fulfill his duties will be questioned by the controversy around documents used in the CBS story and potentially damage John Kerry.

As the Dallas Morning News put it: "The story is now about CBS and what looks like its sloppy reporting, not Mr. Bush and what he did during the Vietnam era.Which is not entirely fair, really, because Mr. Bush has not been entirely forthcoming about his Guard record...

CBS' bungling of this story with only seven weeks to go in the presidential race probably means that any further reporting on Mr. Bush and the Guard, however well sourced and documented, will be received by many Americans as mere political mudslinging."

So could the White House and Karl Rove be behind this? The Palm Beach Post reported that Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said "I can unequivocally tell you that no one involved here at the Democratic National Committee had anything at all to do with any of those documents," but added "If I were an aspiring young journalist, I think I would ask Karl Rove that question."

According to the Post, Rove has declined to comment.

If George Bush were facing a set of documents that could destroy his presidency, wouldn't he do what ever it took? He did it with the vote in Florida in 2000 and ended up in the White House. Should anyone really be surprised if he did it again in 2004?

A lie too many

After a month of dishonest stories about John Kerry, the organizers of the Republican National Convention must have thought they had free reign to lie about anything and everything and they did their best to live up to that belief.

However they may have gone too far as the media, similar to a sleeping bear, may have woken up. A series of stories examining the accuracies of statements made by the Swift Vets, GOP convention speakers, and even Bush & Cheney's speeches and Vietnam War era actions have made their way in the paper. In addition, a new book about George Bush and his youth by Kitty Kelley will be released soon.

Over the next few days and months, with these stories finding their way into the press, the Right will cry "liberal media." The reason they will cry is that conservatives demand conservative coverage and cry when the coverage is balanced. Liberals expect balanced coverage and complain when the coverage is conservative.

If the media were to wake up and actually ask questions, coverage actually might be balanced. But will the media really do so?

Last week Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, while interviewing Chris Matthews, all but got on his knees and begged him and the media to ask tough questions of politicians.

"Why is so hard in this day and age for people like yourself to question the politicians," Stewart asked. "Can the press maybe take a stronger stand and, what's the word I'm looking for - fact check? Can they do that now?"

While that got laughs, Stewart pressed his main point - "Everyone should be questioned on these stupid, and pardon my french, f#@&ing talking points and we should have a normal conversation."

While all Matthews could respond with was whether Stewart asked John Kerry about his position on Iraq (which Stewart put back in his face saying "No, but here's the thing, I'm a comedian.")

So will the media wake up and do their jobs? The early returns look better but not convincing.

Had Enough?

After four years of lying to the American public and the press acting as his accomplish, the media may have decided they have a backbone. A few in the media are starting to question whether they should question a politician when they are making obviously dishonest statements.

That idea has to be of utmost concern to Republicans who rely on the press to push their manufactured statements which have no basis in the truth. The question is whether this will be a fleeting thought or reality.

If it is a fleeting thought the Democrats are going to have to decide if they are willing to get in the muck the GOP and fight. Susan Estrich, who saw her candidate in 1988 lose by not fighting back said "You can't just answer the charges. You can't just say it ain't so. You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt."

The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. Dukakis wasn't. I wasn't. I don't particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again.

Over and over this year we heard that this wouldn't be a repeat of 1988. Too often it seems like it is. The only way to beat Bush is to play by his rules. In the movie The Untouchables, Sean Connery plays Malone, the old hand who teaches Elliot Ness how to beat the mob - "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

Advice John Kerry should take.

Zell - Before he stabbed John Kerry in the Back

Democratic Party of Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner March 1, 2001
Selected remarks of Sen. Zell Miller
(The full remarks are available at Sen. Miller's web site - if they haven't taken them down out of embarrassment.)

...My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.

...In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."...

Zell Miller meets Pat Buchannan

After a disastrous 1992 convention in New Orleans where conservative Pat Buchanan's primetime speech turned America off and helped elect Bill Clinton Presidentthe Republicans have worked hard to hide the red meat segment of their party, evidenced by the choice of speakers for the first few nights of the convention.

However that may have changed Wednesday night with the speech by Zell "zellout" Miller, supposedly a Democratic senator from Georgia. In a speech that may have frightened more undecided voters than converted, Miller set about to trash a man he had only a few years ago called a hero.

Falling under the traditional Republican spin, Miller used half truths and distortions to make his point. Using a single vote by Kerry against weapons systems Miller denigrated himself by questioning Kerry's commitment to the military. Left unsaid, as the Right traditionally does, was the lack of mention that Dick Cheney wanted DEEPER cuts in the military. If that made Kerry bad does that mean Cheney is an idiot?

Commentators were surprised by the venom from the podium. Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) issuing a written statement saying, "There was a lot of hate coming from that podium tonight."

Looking at Miller's eyes one had to wonder if he had gone over the deep edge. For the GOP the bright spot was that Miller made Cheney look rationale.