Shirley Sherrod, or, Standing Up to the Right Wing Sleaze Factory

Not at all. No one believes that story because of Rather's promotion of forged documents. Rather getting punked, big time, is no big factor in people's low opinion of W's service record.

They believe the story because it is supported by considerable evidence, including eyewitness recollections of the actual, unforged documents, along with much else (some of it included in Rather's report, long forgotten)

and contradicted by no evidence. There is a standing, large (many thousands) reward for any evidence - including eyewitness account and simple attested claim - that Rather's story was false: no takers yet.

People who defend W's history and revealed character are the ones who rest their claims on that (truly interesting, for other reasons) event: it's their lifeline, the rope they can cling to in their unwillingness to dip their toes into reality's deep and oddly scary waters.

One of the many illustrations of the benefits of the sleaze factory's output - it has its effects, regardless of whether it is shown up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One way to look at it

We must remember that many conservatives ... er ... "forget" that Bush's poor service record was well-known before the CBS fuck-up. Since they can't make the record go away, people like our neighbor instead try to con people into believing that there was no issue before the CBS debacle.

What I find striking is that such liars would expect to be taken seriously when their only excuse, if we are to believe them honest, is that they are so grotesquely ignorant. You know, as in, "Details like fact only create a fog of confusion, so I don't pay attention to them, which is why my opinion of the facts is correct."

The Bush service record was a burning issue for years before the CBS conflagration; our neighbor, it seems, would prefer you forget that fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Poor service record? documentation of that poor record please, and no forgeries please.

1st Lt. George Bushs record can't be that poor, He was promoted, from 2nd Lt.

Yes, lets see that OER which detales Lt. Bushs poor preformance, now from Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron;

In November 1970, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron, recommended that Bush be promoted to First Lieutenant, calling him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." He said that "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," and that "he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."[4]​

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/14/us/files-offer-glimpse-of-bush-after-college.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

because daddy had political pull. fuck Johnny Mac(John Mccain) kept on getting promoted and he crashed planes almost as often as Paris Hilton changes sexual partners.

 

pj, you personal politically biased opinion, has no legal standing as to fact or relevance.

And how far have you gotten in your life? We both know the answer to that.

 

A couple of things my dear buffalo roam, it is so good of you to refer to provide a link to an article that contains largely information from george II about his "service" in the Air National Guard.

george II was a very inexperienced pilot, less than 500 hours of flight experience...less than 30 flights. Now how can he be a "top notch fighter interceptor pilot" with so few flight hours. He did not even have enough flight hours to make him acceptable to the Air Force for a combat assignment. Yet, his CO, called him a " top notch interceptor pilot", please only a dittohead would belive that.

Two, promotions from O1 to O2 are pretty automatic...especially if you came from powerful political families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...ontroversy#Acceptance_into_the_National_Guard

Main article: Killian documents
"The Killian documents were initially claimed by CBS to have come from the "personal files" of the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, Bush's squadron commander during Bush's Air National Guard service.[36] They describe preferential treatment during Bush's service, including pressure on Killian to "sugar coat" an annual officer rating report for the then 1st Lt. Bush. CBS aired the story amid more releases of Bush's official records by the Department of Defense, including one just the day before as the result of a FOIA lawsuit by the Associated Press.[37] The Killian documents were alleged to be fakes, starting with a Free Republic web posting by Harry MacDougald, a conservative Republican lawyer posting under the blogger name, "Buckhead." MacDougald and multiple fellow bloggers pointed out that the formatting shown in the documents used proportional fonts that did not come into common use until the mid to late 90's and alleged that the documents were therefore likely forgeries.[38][39]

The forgery allegations subsequently came to the attention of the mainstream media, especially after experts also questioned the documents' authenticity and lack of a chain of custody.[40][41][42] The original documents have never been submitted for authentication. The man who delivered the copies, Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard and outspoken Bush critic, claimed that he burned the originals. Burkett admitted lying to CBS and USA Today about where he had obtained the papers and eventually expressed doubts of his own about their authenticity.[43]

CBS and Dan Rather initially defended the documents and the report,[44] but on September 20, 2004 - less than two weeks before Election Day, CBS News stated that it had been "misled" and that it could not authenticate the documents and should not have used them.[45] CBS then formed an independent panel headed by former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press president Louis D. Boccardi to investigate the story and the handling of the Killian memos.[46] The final report of the panel, while not addressing the authenticity of the documents, faulted many of the decisions made in developing the story, and producer Mary Mapes along with three others were forced to resign from CBS News.[47] Prior to the panel report being completed, Rather announced the date of his retirement,[48] left "60 Minutes Wednesday", stepped down as anchor on March 9, 2006, and then left CBS altogether on June 20, 2006.[49] The CBS news show that had aired the memos, "60 Minutes Wednesday" was canceled on May 18, 2005, allegedly due to poor ratings and not because of the memos broadcast.[50] In September 2007, Rather sued CBS and its former parent company, Viacom, for US$70 million, claiming that he had been made a "scapegoat" over the memos story.[51]"

 

Well this may surprise some of you liberals out there but Glenn Beck has defended Sherrod and blames 'the media', and NACCP, for the negative out of context 'call it her mel gibson moment' public humiliation. So yeah. Your conservative pundit doesn't believe she's a 'racist'
Here's his commentary saying the administration should give her her job back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48e7lY2VJwA&feature=related

 

Do you need us all to be as tightly wound as you?

Well, it's sad. It is definitely an indicator of how shallow our political system has become. The administration ought to be severely embarrassed for playing into a libel attack.

Well, why don't you tell us? I'm curious as to your criteria°.
____________________

Notes:

° I'm curious as to your criteria — No, really, I am. Because I learned long ago that while the barest outlines of your arguments are predictable, z is the wildly variable dimension. According to what x and y will you arrange it? How deep or shallow do the criteria run? The thing is that I can't possibly answer you responsibly without some understanding of what you find relevant.

 

joe, joe ,joe, and you can prove that George Bush was a inexperienced pilot?

Yes, a claimed gravel agitation band aid, passing judgement on the Flight proficiency of a F-102 Duce Pilot, Hmmmmm?

200 hr. on a 102 many not be high time, but it isn't a rooky pilot either. considering that a F-102 has a flight duration of around 2 hours that is at a minimum, 100 mission flying solo in type.

You don't turn a rooky pilot loose in a nuclear capable $1.2 million dollar aircraft unless He is fully rated, and has full profiency.

 

LOL, do you understand anything you read? Per previous citation, george II was not qualified to fly in combat in the US Air Force because he did not have enough hours to qualify for combat status. And if he does not qualify for combat status, he does not qualify to fly with a nuke attached to his wing.

I know it is hard buffalo roam, but THINK! So yes, if you had read previous posts and evidence you would have seen the proof of george II's inexperience as a pilot.

 

This engineered controversy is still alive and kicking, I see.

 

Unfortunately it is Giambattista.

 

ITs not an opinion its fact. the squadren bush was in was called the Champaign squadren and was filled with the sons of the rich and powerful.

No, I do and you think you do based on false assumption that you pull out of your ass. though while your at it please attack my mother I dount you'll get away with like you did in the past.

 

A link, perchance? I don't doubt the veracity of your claim. It makes perfect sense. Just want to see something about it. Edify my orifice... err..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

Note that this article, written in 1999, was not at all a hit piece - several known scandals in W's life are glossed over, ignored, or even falsified, in W's favor.

It was reporting W's ordinary backstory, nothing unacceptable by most media folk, and evenhanded by Party.

 

I'm trying but most of the links are for the area of France and the town in Illinois

 

best I can do for now if I come across a better one I will post it

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,590683-2,00.html

 

He was in support of Sherrod only to the extent that he could whack the Obama adminstration over the head with it. His rant has little meritt now as it is after the fact. We will never know what he would have done had the White House not acted. We only have Beck's word and we know how good that is don't we.

And we also know, that his claim that he did not have the tape is false too. Because Brietbart had published it. Hannity had the tape and played the tape on that day. So why couldn't beck?

 

Glenn "Forthright" Beck. He's not an opportunist; I swear on a stack of Bibles. And cry on national TV, too!

 

Don't know the answer to your last question but whatever his reasons for saying what he said or defending her, his reasoning was sound. In other words he was correct when he says the tape is old, it was something she used to illustrate some of her past prejudices, that she is defended by many white farmers and that she should be re-instated.

Just because we might disagree with his political premises doesn't mean he is wrong about everything. In short I think his assessment of this was correct, even the part that the government handled the situation badly.