[Rhodes22-list] Ben C at it again...

[Herb Parsons]

Do WHAT???

Nobody ever showed that the underlying facts were wrong?? HUH? It was 
false documentation that supposedly "proved" a bunch of stuff, but it 
didn't.

Fact - Dan Rather claimed that CBS experts authenticated the documents. 
It may or may not be true the the CBS "experts" authenticated them, but 
the parsing cannot be ignored. Rather was saying the documents were 
authentic. They were not.

The two biggest accusations in the "memos" were that Bush's commander, 
Colonial Killian wanted a flight inquiry to be conducted concerning 
Bush's flight status, and that Killian was being pressure to give Bush a 
better evaluation than he actually earned.

So, once the phony documents are thrown out, exactly how DOES one show 
these "underlying facts about Bush are wrong"? Killian's dead. His son 
has reported that those are not the types of things would have said 
about Bush, and the he didn't keep "secret files". Maybe you would 
prefer that Killian younger have his father raised from the dead to meet 
your standards, but that, along with the fact that the documents were 
fake, says a lot to me.


Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>   Ed;
>
> Dan Rather lies?  What lies?  He was criticized for poor documentation of
> the Bush national guard story, but nobody ever showed that the underlying
> facts about Bush were wrong.  Besides, the reaction of CBS to the issue was
> a very harsh, self-critical report, and implementation of safeguards for the
> future.  What did you want? 
>
> Best
>
> Ben C.
>
>
>
> Tootle wrote:
>   
>> Ben C is again citing the New York Times as authority.  And it is its
>> biased editorial staff no less.  I am sorry to disagree with Ben because I
>> advocate ethical conduct of politicians.  However, I have to believe that
>> citing the New York Times as a good source of information is egregious
>> hypocrisy.  The New York Times supported the Dan Rather lies. It is not an
>> honest information souce.
>>
>> An Attorney General or assistant attorney general is a political position. 
>> An attorney general has a right to dismiss assistant attorney generals for
>> any reason.  Ben fails to cite the enabling legislation saying that a
>> politically appointed assistant attorney general can only be fired for
>> cause.  Ben has  access to the laws, he needs to post the law that says
>> assistant attorneys general can only be fired for specific causes?  Ben is
>> confusing career civil service with politically appointed jobs.  And, it
>> is obvious this is intentional deception.  
>>
>> The Attorney General does not have to personally fire the assistants.  He
>> can use an intermediate assistant to do so. Again, show us the specific
>> law that says he cannot delegate an assistant to fire a subordinate
>> assistant.
>>
>> How about wrong doing by Obama, or his shady acceptance of contributions? 
>> Just look at the sources of his internet contributions.  Has he denied or
>> vigorously stopped them.  
>>
>> Again, there is a ethical problem of supporting intentional deception. 
>> This is not mere puffing and discusssion.
>>
>> Ed K
>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>