Random Thoughts
Nice job by Garence and The Newt. Kudos to you both. A few thoughts that I'd like to get off my chest:
1) The CBS story continues to amaze me. We now know that Burkett spoke with Joe Lockhart, a Clintonista and a senior advisor to Kerry. He also spoke with Max Cleland, an integral member of the Kerry campaign. In fact, the CBS producer for the story, Mrs. Mapes, contacted Burkett looking for information, not the other way around. In doing so, he told her that he would give her information on the condition that she would put him in contact with the Kerry campaign. Presumably, this is how Lockhart spoke with Burkett.
We also know that the DNC's "Operation Fortunate Son" coincided perferctly with the CBS piece. Now, remember all the fuss when it was revealed that the Swift Vets and the Bush campaign had a lawyer in common?! A perfectly legal situation - attorneys are bound by confidentiality laws for christ's sake. Here we have CLEAR indications of coordination between CBS, THE major network on the public airwaves and the DNC. This blows my mind - this is the type of coordination between politicians and the press that existed in the Soviet Union.
Once again, the dems shortsightedness is going to blow up in their face. Here's a good soundbite that Bush should use: "Instead of articulating a clear position on Iraq, Mr. Kerry is having CBS do his DIRTY WORK!"
Btw, did anybody find it odd that as soon as CBS admits the documents were forgeries and say that they were "misled" by their "unimpeachable" source, this source gives an interview to USA Today saying "yeah, it was me. I misled CBS." Hot damn, what a coincidence!! Just after Rather flies to Texas to meet Burkett, they both come out saying that it was all Burkett! Well golly gee.
You know, I believe that, according to Game Theory, all actions are rational (yes, even the actions of democrats). Why then, would CBS do all they can to protect their source, and then when it is clear that the documents were forgeries and that they were given to CBS by Burkett, still say that they don't know where Burkett got the documents? Why would they sacrifice all their credibility, the credibility of Rather, Mapes and the entire network? Why didn't they give a genuine apology, start an independent investigation and move on? The only possible reason is that by revealing the original source of the documents, MORE damage would be done. Given this, in light of what we already know about the discussions between Lockhart, Mapes, Burkett and Cleland, and in light of the timing of the DNC's Operation Fortunate Son, isn't it clear that there is a huge, huge coverup? That there is collaboration between the DNC and CBS?
This stuff makes you wonder about all the media coverage before the internet, radio talk shows and Fox news. This is a bigger scandal than Watergate. Watergate was a "third-rate" burglary that was done by a party that was already in control of the White House and was on their way to a huge electoral victory. It had almost no political significance in and of itself. The coverup was the entire story. Here, we have an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the public by the use of clearly forged documents in an attempt to affect the outcome of a presidential election whose outcome was clearly in doubt. There is already enough evidence to suggest the DNC was a party to this fraud. This is completely outrageous folks.
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?! If Fox news was attempting to smear Kerry? Can you imagine the elite media?
2) Kerry has now explicitly said that he believes that we would be better off with Saddam still in power. How he reconciles this with his vote to authorize force is beyond comprehension. But putting his political ineptness aside, this shows that Kerry in his heart is just another 9/10 dem that still suffers from Vietnam syndrome. At least he has finally let us in on how he would handle the Iraqi situation (at least until another focus group tells him otherwise). A blogger on another site (captainsquartersblog.com I think?) did a Lexis search and found that it has been several weeks since Kerry has mentioned either the word "victory" or the word "win" when referencing Iraq. He thinks we cannot win, just as he did when he was in the VVAW. What he has done is set an artificial timeline for troop withdrawals, which screams of weakness and and a defeatist posture. This is a monumental election - and the differences between the two candidates could not be starker. This is a choice between Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. This is a choice between a 9/12 posture and a 9/10 posture that has been on the wrong side of history at every turn.
posted by Guindiblog | 8:13 PM
1 Comments:
You are too kind Garence. Rather's biases can explain why he ran with the story in the first place, without mentioning the warnings that the docs were fake and the partisan source of the documents (not to mention ben barnes' political history). Let's call it gross negligence and assume the there was no intent to mislead.
However, these biases alone cannot explain what happened next. First, he defended the documents and was so confident that he said there would be no internal investigation. Then, he tried the "fake but true" defense. Now, he is claiming he was duped, claiming that he doesn't know how Burkett got the documents and insisting that the conversations between his producer and the Kerry campaign were benign.
Based on the three factors of the rational player theory that you enumerated: what information the player has, what the player's role is believed to be, and how that player believes that info can be used - it becomes clear that there is a coverup.
1) what information the player has - within hours of the broadcast, everyone knew the documents were fake. Also, Rather knew that Burkett was a political hack and nutjob. He also knew that Mapes contacted the Kerry campaign before the story ran. Also, he knew that Barnes was a Kerry operative. Most importantly, he knew that people would find these things out. The bit of information that he has that nobody else has is a) who forged the docs and b) what is the extent of the CBS-DNC connection.
2) what the player's role is believed to be - this is the key. It is clear that he is not an objective journalist. Indeed his history tells us that he is a liberal with an agenda (this was best documented by Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias" which I highly recommend). If he was an objective journalist, he would be apologizing and investigating and apologizing some more. But instead he has become a laughingstock. Because he has an agenda, his role must be to protect the dems. This suggests that his stonewalling is protecting the dems, meaning that there's more to the story.
3) how that player believes the info can be used - if there was no connection and he was an objective jounralist, then he would be investigating and apologizing, etc.. If there is a connection then it devastates the dems (his position as objective journalist is already beyond repair).
I don't see any other logical explanation for the coverup phase of this saga.
Post a Comment
<< Home