A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.

Monday, January 17, 2005


One would think not since he’s NBC’s Chief Political Correspondent. However, his recent appearance on the Chris Matthews Show and the following quote make me wonder:

“Were Dan Rather and Mary Mapes after the truth or victory when they broadcast their egregiously sloppy story about Bush's National Guard Service? The moment it made air it began to fall apart, and eventually was shredded by factions within the AMMP itself, conservative national outlets and by the new opposition party that is emerging: The Blogger Nation. It's hard to know now who, if anyone, in the "media" has any credibility.” I hope he includes himself in this denunciation.

Was the story actually shredded or was there a collective, illogical jump from the disputed documents, which were collateral to the overall issue, and discounting the veracity of the story as a whole? Apparently, this is the conventional wisdom these days.

Paraphrasing from the recent Chris Matthew Show, Fineman said that because of technology and the internet, bloggers were able to, within in hours of the broadcast of the Bush National Guard story, sense that the documents were forgeries.

Should I say it again that the documents have not been proven to be authentic or forgeries and there are opinions going both ways? Why can’t Fineman see that the nearly immediate challenge to the documents should raise red flags since the bloggers were able to look at a scanned copy of a photocopy displayed on a computer screen and immediately sense they were forgeries. Not only did they sense it, they had complicated analysis about font, proportional spacing and available typewriter characters to bolster what they “sensed.” Experts state that without the original document for inspection, authenticity is nearly impossible to determine. Here, they used a scanned copy of a photocopy on a computer screen or printed on their home computer. Seems to be 3 copies removed from the original yet they "sensed" they were fake. Someone should have hired these guys to look into the Niger document and the photos Powell used during his UN prevarication.

Of course, if they’ve all agreed to call them fakes, I guess there’s not much we can do about it. Since the media blackout of the Ohio recount, there seems to be a tacit agreement amongst the media about certain stories.

BTW, why does the media give so much credence to reports from commissions? As with the 9/11 Commission, the commission designated to investigate the CBS pseudo-scandal comes up with a conclusion that no one bothers to question and treats it as gospel.

Protecting the Royal Family in these here United States

The Bush Rule of Journalism
By Robert Parry
January 17, 2005


This is an excellent article which I recommend reading. Consortium News continues to be a premiere site for news.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?