Libertarian Leanings

Ali weighs in on Novak

Ali at Iraq the Model starts today's post with this.

What does Mr. Novak know about Iraq and the decision makers in the USA? If his information about how decision makers in America are thinking, is similar to his information about Iraq, then I guess we are safe and there’s no need to worry.

I couldn’t help wondering after reading this article that he wrote recently, could it be true? Can the American administration be this stupid?! Or is it that some people in the white house are worried about their political future and do not want to invest too much in the Iraqi issue? Are the terrorist really winning? they don’t seem to be the majority to us, Iraqis! Should we forget everything about freedom and democracy? Was Iraq just an adventure?? Or is this man just blinded by wishful thinking?

[...]

NO Mr. Novak, you are WRONG and I’m being very nice here. This is not an adventure and this is not a neo-conservative dream. This is OUR dream. The dream of millions of oppressed Iraqis who saw what dictatorship can do and who were dying to witness a moment of freedom, to live a peaceful life, a life that carries hope and make dreams not that impossible, a life similar to yours, or is it too much to hope for? We had this dream before anyone heard about neo -conservatives.

I don’t believe what you say about the American administration Mr. Novak, but even if you were right, you can give up on your dream. We won’t give up on ours, and may God help us.

I don't believe it either. Read the whole thing.

Rather doesn't exactly 'fess up

According to CBS Market Watch,

"We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry," Rather said in a news release. "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."

Believable? Not exactly. And we can tell Rather is not repentent. There's no mention of a grave injustice by relying on false documents. And then there is this.

In the new interview Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admitted that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her "a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source," CBS said.

What a surprise! There's a confidential source to be protected! So Rather and Burkett have concocted a way to stand on First Amendment freedom of the press as their vehicle for cover up. The next thing to look for is how long CBS stands by Rather. If he isn't gone soon, I will take it that CBS itself is complicit in Rather's fraud.

Update: I'm listening to Dan Rather in his interview with Marcia Kramer from The Man Without Qualities. Rather, answering a question about the original source of the forgeries, said it was "...a person whom he name asked that his confidence be kept and we agreed to that..." The "he" in that phrase is Burkett. That phrase was Rather laying the ground work for his upcoming First Amendment refusal to reveal that other source. CBS agreed to the other source's confidentiality at Burkett's request. No doubt that was the reason for the trip to Dallas, to get that story straight with Burkett. That having been settled he was free to apologize, and next he will play the part of the dedicated journalist, ready to go to jail to protect the source. Coverup.

Update II: Apparently Rather is smart enough to have figured out that the First Amendment defense wasn't going to fly. USA Today reports that the source of the memos has been revealed by Burkett to be one Lucy Ramirez. Up to now Ms. Ramirez has not been located, and questions persist as to her existence. And though Yahoo People Search shows four people by that name in Houston, I'd be willing to bet she is fictitious. It's a better ploy than trying to invoke the First Amendment for protection of a news source. Burkett, Rather, and CBS can maintain the facade of having been deceived. In a show of journalistic integrity they will waive consitutional rights for the sake of the "truth", and reveal their source -- a source who can never be found, never be questioned, and who will never blow their cover.

More thoughts on Rathergate

In a lengthy post on this latest Washington Post Ra^thergate article, Dale Franks at Q and O make this assertion.

They still don’t seem to understand that the issue isn’t just that the documents were forged. The issue is that CBS News should’ve known they were forged.

This is way too generous. Of course CBS knew the documents were forged. They chose to ignore that. Here are excerpts from the Post article's timeline narrative.

That same day, back in the ninth-floor offices of "60 Minutes," across West 57th Street from the CBS Broadcast Center, warnings about the story began to surface.

Emily Will of North Carolina, one of the experts CBS had asked to examine the memos, sent Mapes an e-mail outlining her concerns over discrepancies in Killian's signature. She also phoned CBS and raised more questions about whether the typography in the memos existed in 1972 and differences with other military documents. "They looked like trouble to me," Will said.

Linda James, a document examiner who lives near Mapes, was raising similar questions. The two memos she looked at "had problems," James recalled telling CBS, and she could not rule out that they had been "produced on a computer."

In Mainstream Media there is the presumption of integrity on the part of Dan Rather and CBS. Anyone who's been reading this blog knows I don't share that sentiment. Because of this presumption CBS and Mainstream Media take the position that it's legitimate to try to shift the discussion to the content of the memos, instead of their authenticity. That implies something else we all already know, that throughout Mainstream Media there is the presumption of Bush-Cheney guilt. Name the topic. Whatever it is, they're guilty. WMD, Halliburton, Abu Ghraib, it's all the same. But Mainstream Media has been wrong every time, and they're wrong on this one, too. The problem is they don't care. When the facts get in the way of their beliefs, they stop talking about the facts.

No, this time it's not about George W. Bush, it's about Dan Rather and CBS deliberately lying to the American public in an attempt to swing this election to John Kerry. This is about fraud. This is about the breathtaking arrogance of Dan Rather and CBS who remain convinced that they can pull it off, and who haven't given up trying. And it will be of huge interest to me, how long the rest of Mainstream Media will continue to assist them.

Full Circle

How fascinating to reflect on Dan Rather's fall from grace and wonder, how did we get here? We've come full circle. Thirty-one years ago John Dean told Richard Nixon that there was a cancer on his Republican presidency. At that time Dan Rather was a contemporary of the reporters who were dragging the Watergate scandal out into the harsh light of day. Today by all appearances, the cancer is eating at the Democrats and the liberal establishment, and Rather is the focus. There is growing suspicion that there's a connection between Bill Burkett, the man most likely to have provided CBS with the forged Air National Guard memos, and the Kerry-Edwards campaign. The implications of this are huge. A national news organization may have fraudulently attempted to influence this presidential election, and the Democratic challenger's campaign may be connected to it. Rather, in what is becoming a ridiculous posture is invoking "longstanding journalistic ethics" in refusing to expose the forger, or even acknowledge the forgeries.

I'm not the first to see the parallel of monolithic CBS verses the pajama clad bloggers, to collectivism verses liberty. These excerpts from Milton Friedman's introduction to F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom offer perspective. It's an odd coincidence that Friedman wrote these words in 1971, just two years before the Watergate scandal began to break. It's easy to recognize the Democrats and the left of today in the words of Milton Friedman then.

A horse is a horse of course...

From yesterday's Best of the Web:

A new Gallup poll shows President Bush with a 13-point lead over John Kerry, 55% to 42% among likely voters, and this without Ralph Nader as an option. The president's job-approval rating holds steady at 52%.

But some Democratic strategists haven't given up hope. Says Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore's campaign manager, "Sen. Kerry is like Seabiscuit: He runs better from behind."

It strikes us that it'd be closer to the truth to say Sen. Kerry is like Seabiscuit's behind.

Is this a coincidence?

In a CBS News poll article this bullet appears.

THE CAMPAIGN
Many voters don’t like what they are seeing in this year’s election -- just under half think it is more negative than past campaigns. In fact, current perceptions of the tenor of the campaign are the most negative they’ve been since 1992, when CBS first asked the question.

Interesting. 1992. Is it that Clintonistas, Carville and Begala have joined the fray, or is it this?

Link via Power Line.

Motive

I've puzzled over the stupidity of the 60 Minutes WEDNESDAY forgeries, and chalked it up to sheer unadulterated arrogance on the part of Dan Rather. I have to admit it smacks of poetic justice to see Rather, who once seemed to gloat over the fall of Richard Nixon because of a third rate burglary, now himself fallen because of a forgery that comes no where close to third rate quality. How could it be? Well, here's something that didn't occur to me. Revenge. In a 1988 interview Rather was especially hard on Bush '41.

"President Bush and Dan Rather, the CBS anchor, had become mortal enemies as a result of their live interview during the 1988 presidential campaign. Rather is a self-proclaimed liberal whose weekly radio show on CBS openly condemns conservative policies and ideas. He clearly hoped to damage Bush in the TV interview, rehearsing all day, taping a prosecutorial lean-in about Iran-Contra, and turning over much of his regular newscast to others so he could concentrate on the interview. He immediately went on the attack about Iran-Contra, and Bush countered, asking Rather if he would like his entire career judged by the time he walked off the set during a newscast and left the network dark for seven minutes. Rather was stunned, looked in shock, and came back with shrill and ugly questions. The consensus afterward was that Bush had won big, destroying Rather and establishing himself as a tough competitor. Rather, of course, hated Bush after that."
--Former Bush press secretary Marlin Fitzwater in his 1995 book, Call the Briefing.

The fact that there is motive beyond partisanship doesn't make this forgery affair any less stupid, or any less arrogant, but it does explain how Rather could go overboard with it. I haven't the slightest bit of sympathy for him. I'm happy to see him where he is. He is an arrogant, dishonest son of a bitch, and I'll be quite happy to kick him while he's down.

The link to Daniel Wiener comes via Roger L. Simon.

American Soldier

Solomon has excerpts from Tommy Franks' book American Soldier.

I met with King Abdullah II of Jordan in his home in Amman on the afternoon of Thursday, January 23, 2003. "General," he said, "from reliable intelligence sources, I believe the Iraqis are hiding chemical and biological weapons."

He wonders why the general isn't considered suitable 60 Minutes material.

Kerry connection theory

Instapundit reader Janet Tague writes:

This is my train of logic:

1. Once CBS admits that these were forgeries, then there is no journalistic ethic preventing them from naming the source of the documents -- actually the source should be exposed.

2. As long as CBS is "investigating" the documents, then they haven't admitted to the forgery and they can protect their source's identity.

3. Therefore, the source is so politically explosive that it's worth the permanent damage to their brand and their news credibility. Who or what could possibly be worth that?

Janet Tague, Stamford CT. Not a political operative. Actually a registered Democrat (although I voted for Bush last time and most certainly will again now).

I've idly speculated that the DNC or the Kerry-Edwards campaign could be involved in this fascinating and entertaining episode. Ms. Tague reinforces that thought. It raises this image of Dan with a tiger by the tail that he can't let go. Gee, don't you just feel for the guy.

It may be the Hillary '08 theory. When the Kerry campaign recently appeared to be going adrift they called in the Clintonistas to come aboard to right the ship. Instead they sunk it, clearing the way for Hillary's bid in four years. Unfortunately the landscape has changed, and the damage that these forgeries will have done to the credibility of CBS, Mainstream Media, and the Democrats is positively unpredictable. The Democrats may be so badly damaged by this that Hillary will have no chance even in '08.

Longstanding Journalistic Ethics

In an unsurprising turn of events CBS is standing by its Texas Air National Guard story and the people who produced it. So it appears Dan Rather is not going to go quietly. It would also appear that arrogance wins out. CBS released its statement yesterday.

The 60 MINUTES Wednesday broadcast reported that it obtained six documents from the personal files of Lt. Col. Killian, four of which were used in the broadcast. In accordance with longstanding journalistic ethics, CBS News is not prepared to reveal its confidential sources or the method by which 60 MINUTES Wednesday received the documents.

In a spasm of "longstanding journalistic ethics" CBS concludes.

The editorial content of the report was not based solely on the physical documents, but on numerous credible sources who support what the documents said.

Through the frenzied debate of the past week, the basic content of the 60 MINUTES Wednesday report - that President Bush received preferential treatment to gain entrance to the Texas Air National Guard and that he may not have fulfilled all of the requirements -- has not been substantially challenged.

I ponder what those ethics might be. Perhaps CBS is standing on precedent.

Dateline's report on Nov. 17 featured 14 min. of balanced debate, capped by 57 seconds of crash footage that explosively showed how the gas tanks of certain old GM trucks could catch fire in a sideways collision.

Following a tip, GM hired detectives, searched 22 junkyards for 18 hours, and found evidence to debunk almost every aspect of the crash sequence. Last week, in a devastating press conference, GM showed that the conflagration was rigged, its causes misattributed, its severity overstated and other facts distorted. Two crucial errors: NBC said the truck's gas tank had ruptured, yet an X ray showed it hadn't; NBC consultants set off explosive miniature rockets beneath the truck split seconds before the crash -- yet no one told the viewers.

In that ground breaking broadcast, NBC led the way to new ethical heights with its expose on GM trucks with side saddle gas tanks. That means the "longstanding journalistic ethics" go back at least as early as 1992. In fact, CBS itself has demonstrated the same kind of high minded reporting in the past.

Ben Kelley was also an on-camera expert in a CBS 60 Minutes segment in which a truck's wheel rims were filed down — again, viewers were in the dark — to make the phony case that they were prone to explode while the tires were being filled with air. And Kelley appeared in another 60 Minutes piece that implied a Jeep was prone to flip over during "fairly gentle" turns. Guess what? Heavy weights had been hidden in the Jeep's wheel wells to make it more likely to flip.

Unlike NBC whose President Michael Gartner resigned over the Dateline debacle, CBS is standing firm. What else can they do? If they want to win this election they need to take this discussion to a new level: They will preen in their First Amendment armor. The hope will be that Bush and the evil Republicans can be portrayed as stomping on the constitution and the freedom of the press for the sake of an election. Dan Rather and CBS are arrogant enough to try it, and the Kerry-Edwards people, from the top down, are dumb enough to be part of it. What a fun campaign season! What next?