Progressive Tory Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 "A $70m lawsuit filed by Dan Rather, the veteran former newsreader for CBS Evening News, against his old network is reopening the debate over alleged favourable treatment that Bush received when he served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war." "Among those CBS considered for the panel to investigate Rather's report were far-right broadcasters Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/2...bs-lawsuit-bush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 ...while Dan Rather's legacy will be one of still further disgrace. Ironically, his downfall was an electric typewriter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted December 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 ...while Dan Rather's legacy will be one of still further disgrace. Ironically, his downfall was an electric typewriter. Dan Rather is a well respected journalist and not the only one now speaking out against the media control for the past eight years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 Dan Rather is a well respected journalist and not the only one now speaking out against the media control for the past eight years. No, a journalist is not to have a partisan agenda. Dan Rather had an agenda and exposed it. Ergo, he is not a journalist, let alone a respected one. I supposed you could call him a columnist, but that wasn't the job he applied for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 No, a journalist is not to have a partisan agenda. Dan Rather had an agenda and exposed it.Ergo, he is not a journalist, let alone a respected one. I supposed you could call him a columnist, but that wasn't the job he applied for. Like Mike Duffy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 Isn't the point that Bush DIDN"T finish his miltary duty and because of his dad's postion and having friends doing favours for Bush Sr., he didn't have to go to Nam. I have read reports, one showed the real documents on the net about Bush's military records which he had destroyed and the talk he had with is "ghostwriter" in 98-99, when he admitted to the writer he didn't finish. The writer never got a chance to write the book because Bush's PR people Barrnett being one, went to the writer and got all writing he had done on GW and destroyed them. One thing about the Bush family they know how to get rid of anything or anyone that can prove anything against them. We all know Bush has/had a problem with booze and he also had a problem with drugs. When Bush thought he was safe from going over to Nam, he fell apart when he learned that the Air Force would be sending his group over to Nam. His drug use was so bad he was out of control so his dad and higher ups in the military sent Bush to re-hab, which is why he never finished, and then he went to work for some guy on his campaign which his dad arranged after leaving the program. I still read rumors of him doing coke in Air Force One, that's why he flown more than any other prez, a limited amount of exposure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 (edited) Isn't the point that Bush DIDN"T finish his miltary duty and because of his dad's postion and having friends doing favours for Bush Sr., he didn't have to go to Nam.... No, the point was that Dan Rather and his producers conspired to present bogus documents in a very clumsy October surprise, disgracing not only themselves, but the entire CBS network. Burkett (not Barnett) played them for the fools they were....and President Bush was re-elected. Bush's TAG service record was already well documented without the need to fabricate letters from a dead man. It's not the first time Dan Rather made an ass out of himself on national televison. Edited January 1, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 No, the point was that Dan Rather and his producers conspired to present bogus documents in a very clumsy October surprise, disgracing not only themselves, but the entire CBS network. Barnett played them for the fools they were....and President Bush was re-elected.Bush's TAG service record was already well documented without the need to fabricate letters from a dead man. It's not the first time Dan Rather made an ass out of himself on national televison. Again the truth is BUSH did NOT finish his time instead a miltary friend and his dad lied that he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Like Mike Duffy? Indeed, Mike duffy wasn't a Journo..he was a talking head...a commentator, an MC..etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) Again the truth is BUSH did NOT finish his time instead a miltary friend and his dad lied that he did. Nonsense.....Bush's absence was well known even in the 2000 election. So what? He did serve as Commander-in-Chief for 8 years...LOL! Superscript test: Rathergate Edited January 1, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Nonsense.....Bush's absence was well known even in the 2000 election. So what?He did serve as Commander-in-Chief for 8 years...LOL! Superscript test: Rathergate Yes and that went so well didn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 No, the point was that Dan Rather and his producers conspired to present bogus documents in a very clumsy October surprise, disgracing not only themselves, but the entire CBS network. Burkett (not Barnett) played them for the fools they were....and President Bush was re-elected.Bush's TAG service record was already well documented without the need to fabricate letters from a dead man. It's not the first time Dan Rather made an ass out of himself on national televison. No, you're making assumptions. The only people who conspired to present bogus documents are still in the White House (but not for long, as they now leave in disgrace). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 No, you're making assumptions. The only people who conspired to present bogus documents are still in the White House (but not for long, as they now leave in disgrace). Duh! That would be the completion of two terms in the White House. No Mickey-Mouse games like in Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Yes and that went so well didn't it? Sure did....just ask Saddam! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 This topic gets a big, who cares. Clinton was a draft dodger, and Joe Biden received more deferments from the draft than Dick Cheney. But again, who cares, it doesn't mean anything. Let Dan Rather file his lawsuit and get his 15 minutes of fame from it. I could care less, but that's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 This topic gets a big, who cares. Clinton was a draft dodger, and Joe Biden received more deferments from the draft than Dick Cheney. But again, who cares, it doesn't mean anything. Let Dan Rather file his lawsuit and get his 15 minutes of fame from it. I could care less, but that's just my opinion. Correct...the lawsuit in fact regards post dismissal, contractual air time arrangements on 60 Minutes, not the material facts of RatherGate. But it is still funny to watch these poor bastards kick and scream because they could never bring President Bush down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 But it is still funny to watch these poor bastards kick and scream because they could never bring President Bush down. Not as funny as watching the other bastards kick and scream because they lost control of all three levels of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Not as funny as watching the other bastards kick and scream because they lost control of all three levels of government. "Three levels of government"?? More confused Canuckspeak about the US government. But that's OK for posers and wannabes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) "Three levels of government"?? More confused Canuckspeak about the US government. But that's OK for posers and wannabes. As a Canadian, I'd like to apologize to you for some of the less informed posts by my fellow Canadians regarding American politics. He's probably thinking that the American senate and American house of representatives are two seperate levels of government. For the record, and to everyone else posting on this forum, the 3 branches of American government are the executive, legislative, and judicial. The senate and house are both part of the same branch of government, the legislative branch. Thank you. Edited January 2, 2009 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 As a Canadian, I'd like to apologize to you for some of the less informed posts by my fellow Canadians regarding American politics. He's probably thinking that the American senate and American house of representatives are two seperate levels of government. For the record, and to everyone else posting on this forum, the 3 branches of American government are the executive, legislative, and judicial. The senate and house are both part of the same branch of government, the legislative branch. Thank you. Well done....but no apology required. Many Canadians know more about US government than some Americans do. But not all of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Like Mike Duffy? Lost me on that one? I didn't say reporters weren't allowed to be people, I was inferring that their beliefs shouldn't interfere with their work, you know - being a professional and all? Sorry, I didn't think that this would be hard for people to understand. Rather got caught with his pants down and this will forever taint his image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) For the record, and to everyone else posting on this forum, the 3 branches of American government are the executive, legislative, and judicial. And you're still smarting from losing all of them. So much so you've resorted to getting pompous over semantics. I wonder who Obama will send to the Supreme Court. Edited January 2, 2009 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 ....I wonder who Obama will send to the Supreme Court. Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Nonsense.....Bush's absence was well known even in the 2000 election. So what?He did serve as Commander-in-Chief for 8 years...LOL! Superscript test: Rathergate Well, he failed there too, because HE knew about 9/11 could and probably would happen on Aug. 6th report he got at the ranch and HE refused to do anything about because it was part the reasons need to invaded Afg. and Iraq! Therefore his vow to keep AMERICANS SAFE was a failed attempt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Well, he failed there too, because HE knew about 9/11 could and probably would happen on Aug. 6th report he got at the ranch and HE refused to do anything about because it was part the reasons need to invaded Afg. and Iraq! Therefore his vow to keep AMERICANS SAFE was a failed attempt Presidents don't take vows.....this is just silly. The WTC was attacked in 1993....so does that mean President Clinton also failed? After all..he knew about it ! Besides, I thought you said it was an "inside job" anyway.....you know...heard it somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.