I really liked this part:
The report reveals on page 130 that Mapes, one of those fired because of the scandal, had documented information in her possession before the controversial September 8 broadcast that George W. Bush, while in the Texas Air National Guard, "did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots." This information is critical because Dan Rather, in the broadcast, insinuated that Bush was among the "many well-connected young men [who tried to] pull strings and avoid service in Vietnam."Report quotes here. Quite the lovely bunch of guttersnipes. More by following the original link including the tawdry part played by CBS's John Roberts.
AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid explained the significance of the panel's revelation: "Mapes, who was very close to Rather and enjoyed his confidence, had the evidence exonerating Bush of this malicious charge. The report shows that there were multiple credible sources to prove that Bush did not try to avoid Vietnam by going into the National Guard and that he was in fact willing to go to Vietnam as a pilot. However, CBS News deliberately kept this information from its viewers and conveyed an opposite impression because Rather, Mapes & Company were trying to depict Bush as a coward who, as Commander-in-Chief, was sending American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq."
And here's a good one:
Consider: on the facts presented to Mary Mapes in August 2004, there were, in fact, two ways to tell the "story."Yep.
...
The second way is the following: a well-connected Kerry fundraiser, Ben Barnes, and other Texas Democrats, are peddling stories about President Bush. They present documents to us, the Killian memos, purporting to show that Bush was given preferential treatment in the TANG in the late 1960s, and perhaps disobeyed orders to get a physical, went AWOL, etc. But our document examiners have some problems with them. And other people are telling us that Killian wouldn't have written something like that, including Killian's widow and son. The documents on their face, viewed objectively, don't pass the smell test... dude, they look like they were printed out on my Dell. What gives? Do the Democrats have a dirty tricks operation? Has someone with connections to the Kerry campaign conspired to perpetrate a federal crime, forgery of government documents, in an effort to influence a Presidential election, not 35 years ago, but right now, in 2004? How high up does the conspiracy go?
Which is the better story? The 35 year-old story about Bush's ne-er do well youth that we already know and have already discounted? Or the brand-new 2004 vintage story about the Democratic Party in Texas conspiring to commit forgeries to influence a Presidential election in wartime? Which story would a real news organization try to run down? A Pulitzer Prize was just waiting out there for someone, anyone, to pick up, and CBS (and, indeed, much of the mainstream media), just let it lie there. That's what proves the liberal bias.
Hat tip for the fetching snap of Ms. Mapes: Mad Mammoth
