Howie Kurts says nada on how true AWOL Bush was -just questions "no bias"

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2148-2005Jan11.html


Critics Question No-Bias Finding By CBS Panel

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page C01

If there is one line in the 224-page report on CBS News that has set critics aflame, it is that there is no "basis" for concluding that Dan Rather and his colleagues had a "political bias" in pursuing their badly botched story about President Bush's National Guard service.

What, they say? No evidence?

The investigation commissioned by CBS determined that producer Mary Mapes, shown in Afghanistan in 2001, and news anchor Dan Rather had pursued the story of President Bush's National Guard service for five years but said there was no basis for concluding the two had a "political bias." (Courtesy Of The Mapes Family)

<snip>

Under the heading "Information that Might Suggest a Political Agenda," the report listed a five-year pursuit of the Guard story by Rather and Mapes; the use of strongly anti-Bush sources; and Mapes's call to Joe Lockhart, which put the John Kerry campaign adviser in touch with Bill Burkett, the source of the suspect Guard documents about Bush's military service. (On the opposite side, the panel cited previous reporting by Rather and Mapes in both Democratic and Republican administrations.) <snip>

But the statement didn't hold up. The lead expert, Marcel Matley, later told The Washington Post that he had examined only a signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves. The female experts told ABC News they had warned CBS about the documents. And the "unimpeachable" source, Burkett, admitted having lied to CBS. <snip>

"We didn't come clean soon enough," Linda Mason said yesterday. But, she added, "Dan does think he's constantly attacked. If we backed off every story that was criticized, we wouldn't be doing any stories." <snip>

[papau]

1. Even his choice of folks to quote - Weekly Standards Last and Bush lover

Steve Roberts

"In any fair-minded assessment of how CBS performed and why they so badly butchered their own standards, that has to be part of the explanation," said former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a professor at George Washington University. "It's not just that they wanted to be first, they wanted to be first with a story that was critical of the president."

The investigators hired by CBS "lay out a bunch of evidence of political bias, and very little exculpatory evidence, and then throw their hands in the air," said Weekly Standard writer Jonathan Last. "Rather is sitting here maintaining, despite everything, that the memos don't actually matter, that the story is right."

[blm]

4. Hey Steve, the CORRABORATING EVIDENCE doesn't MATTER to you?

And BTW Steve, IF that document WAS a forgery, then Thornburgh, a longtime Bush "fixer" would have declared it to be a forged document. Forgeries CAN be easily detected by experts employed by someone of ATTORNEY GENERAL status.

Since they say they can't prove forgery, then that screams the document is AUTHENTIC and they are being purposely noncommittal to further cloud the issue regarding the CONTENTS of the document.

[papau]

5. Good Point -A G status.Thornburgh could not show forgery

I wonder if Howie cares?

[blm]

6. You know that answer. Kurtz WON'T ask the REAL questions because the

answers aren't part of Rove's script.

[berni_mccoy]

2. It's not like CBS was paid $250,000 by Democtrats to report this

NOW THAT WOULD BE BIASED!

[NoStinkinBadges]

3. Was Rather and Mapes Set Up?

Don't underestimate the significance of the CBS document fiasco. Prior to the event Bush's Guard performance (lack of) was a negative for him. Thanks to Mapes and Rather the Guard issue was converted to an asset for the Chimp. Overnight he became a victim of the supposedly biased news media and had an issue to rally the base. In a close election it is entirely possible that this issue was what put the idiot back in the WH. UGH.

[papau]

7. Don't think so - but no Secretary interview - and WH getting 2 weeks to

work up a response - was stupid.