Update: Reaction from document examiner Emily Will added at bottom of post (April 3 | 13:02 EDT)
Mary Mapes (file photo at right), the former CBS producer behind the Bush National Guard memo scandal that eventually felled Dan Rather's career has a post up at the liberal Nation magazine's Web site insisting that comparisons between Memogate and the L.A. Times falling for fake documents about Tupac Shakur's murder are "simplistic, unfounded and unfair." (h/t Patterico)
Apparently, there's a profound difference between trying to sway a presidential election with questionable documentary evidence and messing with Tupac.
Mapes defended her work in Memogate before turning, predictably, to fire on the Bush administration. Of course in doing so, Mapes, who had just finished defending her reliability as a journalist, laid out at least two commonly-repeated falsehoods propagated by the Left about the Iraq war. First, Mapes insisted that:
The greatest fraud perpetrated in modern journalistic history was the Bush Administration's linking of Iraq to September 11.
But the Bush administration never argued such a thing in the lead-up to the war. As the BBC, hardly a Bush cheerleader, rightly noted in September 2003:
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September.... Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda.
For her second charge/tired left-wing talking point, she insisted:
The biggest forgery foisted on the media was the Niger documents claiming that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake to be used in nuclear weapons.
Once again Mapes is wrong. Well, maybe half-right but wholly hypocritical.
While it seems pretty clear now that Saddam was unsuccessful in purchasing uranium, that doesn't mean he wasn't trying to buy it in the first place, which is the leap of logic that Mapes insisted on making from the discredited Niger yellowcake memo. You'd think Mapes wouldn't make this error, especially if she adhered to the now infamous Dan Rather "fake but accurate" defense.
Writing in April 2006 at Slate magazine, Christopher Hitchens noted that while the Niger document was a forgery, there's little doubt that Saddam was trying to, but never succeeded in, purchase uranium (emphasis mine):
In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that "now that you have come to take away our assets," the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)
[...]
[In the mid-1990s], most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime, and there were few fully accredited Iraqi ambassadors overseas, Iraq's interests often being represented by the genocidal Islamist government of Sudan (incidentally, yet another example of collusion between "secular" Baathists and the fundamentalists who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden). There was one exception—an Iraqi "window" into the world of open diplomacy—namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam's ambassador to the Holy See until 2000.
[...]
In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious.
Update (April 3 | 13:02 EDT):
I received an e-mail yesterday from Emily Will, one of the document experts CBS hired who didn't tell Mapes what she wanted to hear:
I read your NewsBusters post with interest. I am one of the 4 document examiners retained by CBS to look at those National Guard documents, and one of the 2 who cautioned Mary Mapes directly not to use them. During my conversation with Ms. Mapes giving her my thoughts on the documents, I mentioned that I had noted some possible chronological inconsistencies among the various documents that had been provided to me. This irritated her, and has turned into her assertions that I am my opinion on the documents was politically motivated. I see that in her Nation piece she elaborates further on this idea. Rest assured that every true expert knows that an opinion based on politics rather than analysis of demonstrable observations is doomed to failure and is a good way to ruin a career.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Niger...
April 1, 2008 - 16:20 ET by Uphill...a country known for absolutely nothing...
Except for delicious tuna sandwiches and the exclusive Niamey Country Club. It's impossible to get an early morning tee time.
Ms. Mapes cannot seem to
April 1, 2008 - 16:32 ET by Andrew H.Ms. Mapes cannot seem to get the facts. Perhaps it is beyond her capability. Probably instead, its a matter of agenda of course.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
It's definitely an agenda.
April 1, 2008 - 20:19 ET by DJEddleIt's definitely an agenda. Anyone who has the ability to listen or to read would know that there was never an alleged link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 being pushed by the Bush administration. It's simply Democrat and Democrat media spin. This is a great article showing how the lead up to the Iraq War really played out:
Why We Are In Iraq
You will not find any allegations that Saddam played a role in 9-11. But what is more interesting is the fact that the more Iraqi documents are discovered and translated, the more a connection seems possible. Someday, but not anytime soon, we will have an accurate account of exactly how deep Saddam was into fundamentalist terrorism. It would not be surprising to someday find out that there were operational connections with Al-Qaeda.
*If you like the comments, check out the articles.
The Bush administration was
April 1, 2008 - 16:37 ET by FishFace222The Bush administration was not wrong in investigating a link between Sadam and 9/11 but they never claimed there was a connection. I would have been very disappointed if they didn't look into it.
Some One Did Make that Claim
April 1, 2008 - 18:23 ET by Del DolemonteIn reality, a Federal Judge in NY City, appointed by Bill Clinton, actually ruled in a 2003 lawsuit that Iraq did play a role in 9/11.
Saddam and 9/11
April 1, 2008 - 19:14 ET by JerHowever, the administration did precious little to discourage the perception of a Saddam-9/11 linkage, and I believe actually cultivated the belief. Consequently, a majority of Americans continue to assume a connection.
Even the language of the Congressional authorizing resolution strongly suggests a linkage.
Jer
Let's be fair, the
April 1, 2008 - 19:33 ET by JerryLet's be fair, the democrats & msm spent every waking hour discouraging the perception of a Saddam-9/11 link. As well as discouraging the perception of winning, and the perception of having a coalition, and the perception of establishing a democracy, and the perception of our military as the good guys, and .... well, you get the picture.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Wait, you say that the MSM
April 1, 2008 - 19:43 ET by balboaWait, you say that the MSM tried to discourage the connection, but Chris Norman says the MSM tried to get Bush to assert there was one. Which is it?
Bal, bal, bal.. The MSM
April 1, 2008 - 19:53 ET by JerryBal, bal, bal..
The MSM said there was no connection while trying to pin W down on a claim that there was a connection. A desperate attempt to capture W in a "I did not have sex..." moment... not hard to understand.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Saddam-9/11 perceptions
April 1, 2008 - 19:58 ET by JerJerry...If the Democrats have discouraged the perception, and the media has discouraged the perception, and the Bush administration has discouraged the perception, why do a majority of Americans persist with the perception?
Jer
Maybe because
April 2, 2008 - 11:05 ET by DarkCurrenta majority just don't pay attention to moderately complex issues? That might also explain why so many vote Democrat
Good grief, are you going to
April 1, 2008 - 19:35 ET by Chris NormanGood grief, are you going to blame Bush because some people are obtuse? Bush and others answered this question a number of times at press conferences. Hostile reporters tried to get him to make a connection and he refused. Since you made this assertion, can you cite examples of the administration "cultivating the belief" or do you just believe it?
Chris...read the resolution
April 1, 2008 - 19:48 ET by JerChris...read the resolution itself and tell me whether the inference is a reasonable one.
Jer
And who wrote the
April 1, 2008 - 23:51 ET by Dan The Man 2And who wrote the resolution? Congress wrote it, the President si with the Exective branch not the legislative branch.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
A Congress controlled by a
April 2, 2008 - 09:00 ET by JerA Congress controlled by a Republican majority. Are you suggesting the congressional leadership didn't run the proposed language past the administration prior to submitting the resolution?
Jer
Im suggesting, nay outright
April 2, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Dan The Man 2Im suggesting, nay outright yelling that congress did the deed and they dont have to run anything by the President. The Senate passed by 3/4 and the House by 2/3. Read the stupid thing sometime. In addition all the Congress had access to all teh intel the President had, but most did not look at it.
The Congress gave their blessing as required by the Constitution.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Not as required
April 2, 2008 - 12:20 ET by sarcasmoOr they'd have actually declared war, instead of giving some non-Constitional blessing that could be argued-over endlessly later, as we're seeing right-now. Why, it's almost as if those Founders were some really-smart guys we should listen-to more-often...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I've read the "stupid
April 2, 2008 - 12:59 ET by JerI've read the "stupid thing" several times. I would be absolutely astonished if the resolution reached the final draft stage without the administration both reviewing it and providing input. It wouldn't be surprising if someone in the administration actually penned the operative provisions of the resolution.
I also think you're assertion that all the Congress had access to all the intel available to the President is incorrect.
But this is mostly a tangential issue. My point is that there are sufficient references to Al Quaeda, Saddam, and 9/11 contained in the authorizing resolution that a lay person could reasonably infer a connection. And, furthermore, despite the Bush denials, the linkage argument has been primarily advanced by Republicans and conservative media sources.
Jer
Actually... The
April 3, 2008 - 00:51 ET by DJEddleActually...
The administration created the original draft of the resolution. The Congress just revised it and agreed with the final product. But that doesn't mean it was wrong or that the Congress isn't responsible for its content.
The references to Saddam, Al-Qaeda, and 9-11 in that document could be inferred by a lay person that there was a connection between them. But that's a problem with the lay person. This resolution is meant to be understood by congressmen, legal professionals, and scholars. It's a government document that will be subject to study and scrutiny by properly educated people. These are the people that will understand the language of the resolution. If you can't comprehend what you're reading, you can infer something entirely different than what was intended.
But make no mistake...there was nothing in that document that suggested there was such a connection. I know you know that. But you can't blame the administration for the misconceptions. We can however blame the Democrat congressmen that fabricate these stories about how they were misled and that they were told by the administration that Saddam was connected to 9-11. That's just pathetic and disgraceful.
*If you like the comments, check out the articles.
Actually, the Congress was
April 2, 2008 - 12:53 ET by DJEddleActually, the Congress was not controlled by a Republican majority - only the House was. The Democrats controlled the Senate. And no, there wasn't an implication that Saddam was connected to 9-11. You may have inferred such a connection, but that is not the fault of the president, that's your fault.
You should go read this article. You'll find all the answers you need:
Why We Are In Iraq
*If you like the comments, check out the articles.
DJEddie...You are correct
April 2, 2008 - 14:26 ET by JerDJEddie...You are correct about Democratic control of the Senate at the time of the vote on the resolution. I had forgotten the Jeffords switch had given the Dems a slim, temporary majority. I apologize for the error.
That said, I still believe this was a Republican formulated resolution, and was pushed through Congress at a time when it would have been political suicide for Democrats involved in hotly contested races to take serious issue with it. They would have been pounded as soft on security--particularly in the post 9/11 atmosphere.
Personally, I didn't draw any inferences of a 9/11-Iraqi connection from what I read and heard concerning the resolution at the time of its passage. I confess to not having read the actual document until a few months ago. But, based on the conflating language contained in several of the clauses, I think it not unreasonable to suspect a linkage--especially when considered in conjunction with ambiguous statements from administration officials, Republican lawmakers, and putative evidence published by conservative media sources.
I'm not directly blaming Bush for this. As I've said--I think for the third time now--he has on several occasions disavowed the connection.
BTW, I read the "Why We Are In Iraq" article you linked. It's a fine analysis. I disagree with parts of it, but we can leave that for another day.
Jer
Just curious, Jer... What
April 3, 2008 - 00:41 ET by DJEddleJust curious, Jer...
What did you disagree with in that article? You can e-mail me about it if you'd like. I'm just curious because I wrote it - and I'm not sure whether you disagreed with my conclusion and analysis, or if you took issue with some of the quotes I pulled. Either way, I'd like to get some feedback. Thanks for checking it out.
*If you like the comments, check out the articles.
Well, congratulations DJ
April 3, 2008 - 00:57 ET by JerWell, congratulations DJ on the article. It was informative, well-crafted, and presented with a straightforward clarity that certainly impressed me. I have a couple of interpretive quibbles, about which I will either respond here or by PM tomorrow.
Jer
The "belief" that was
April 1, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Indiana JoeThe "belief" that was "cultivated" was the MSM cultivating the belief that Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11. He never said it, but to this day many believe he did.
Not hard to understand. Pretty hard to refute, though. And if Bush did "precious little" to counteract that belief, it was merely because he didn't call the press "liars."
But he should have.
(just btw, I think the wording of the resolution is irrelevant to the public perception. People got this idea from the news, not the resolution.)
Indiana Joe...I think your
April 1, 2008 - 21:35 ET by JerIndiana Joe...I think your criticism of my wording is justified. My assertion that the administration "cultivated" the belief [of a connection] implies a deliberate and intentional course of action that is not supportable.
Nevertheless, I believe more could have been done by the administration to dispel the linkage myth which seventy per cent of the public has accepted as truth.
Consider these factors:
1. The administration apparently believed--at least initially--that Saddam was a 9/11 collaborator, and sought evidence to establish the connection in order to buttress the case for the projected Iraqi invasion
2. There were ambiguous comments made by Cheney which left open the possibility of Saddam's involvement
3. The frequent references to an Al Quaeda presence in Iraq naturally tended to create a perception of 9/11 linkage
4. Republican congressmen and conservative pundits made clear and uneqivocal accusations of an Iraqi connection to 9/11. FrontPage magazine published a major "bombshell" article which purported to conclusively prove the linkage
5. As I mentioned earlier, the war resolution's language can easily be interpreted as acknowledging a connection
This article provides a good overview of the issue.
Jer
Except for one thing, I
April 1, 2008 - 21:43 ET by SmartypantsExcept for one thing, I distinctly remember President Bush, on multiple occasions, openly stating there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. He left nothing open to interpretation.
This is a tad high, I think.
April 1, 2008 - 21:56 ET by general companywhich seventy per cent of the public has accepted as truth
If this was true his current support would be much higher. The press has pretty much gone out of their way to notify the folks that there wasnt a link. Unfortunatly they also claimed Bush said there was, witch was rightly pointed out, they made the assumption. The artical you posted is a perfect example of this.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
I'm not sure what you're
April 1, 2008 - 22:07 ET by JerI'm not sure what you're claiming the article is a perfect example of. If it's that the press is claiming Bush said there was a connection, then this article is obviously not an example of such practice, which is made clear in the very first paragraph.
Jer
It may be less than 70% currently, but I believe it is still the majority view.
He has indeed. But
April 1, 2008 - 21:57 ET by JerHe has indeed. But despite that, as I noted, there have been a number of instances where Republican politicians and conservative news sources continue to insist otherwise. Perhaps Bush needs to call them into his office and set them straight.
Jer
Who? Quite honestly, I
April 1, 2008 - 22:25 ET by general companyWho? Quite honestly, I think just as many Dems suggested this, as well as the other stuff (WMD's) they are chapped at him for. Just like I suggested, the artical you linked quotes Bush several time using AQ and Iraq in the same sentence each time suggesting that Bush might have mislead the folks. But it was their own reporting that was making the suggestion by leading their readers the way they did.
The only relivent items in the artical
"You can say Bush should be faulted for not correcting every single misapprehension, but that's something different than saying they set out deliberately to deceive," said Duke University political scientist Peter D. Feaver. "Since the facts are all over the place, Americans revert to a judgment: Hussein is a bad guy who would do stuff to us if he could."
Even when they start the artical stating
"Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this".
As far as the "poll" they cunducted
Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll.
Never mind they claimed we believed this, even though the poll clearly shows nobody is suggesting they believe it. They asked a hypothetical question about Hussein and then spun it into fact. Another important fact here is this is a time (2003) when Bush still had plenty of backing and the paper is not quit a embolden as they are now, and it was exactly this kinda misleading reporting that has embolden them.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
g c...My "he did indeed"
April 2, 2008 - 06:41 ET by Jerg c...My "he did indeed" comment was in response to Smartypants remark that he had heard Bush on several occasions deny any linkage between Saddam and 9/11. So, I was agreeing that Bush had indeed issued those denials.
[I can see that the way the thread was zig-zagging it was difficult to tell exactly to what or whom I was responding.]
Jer
Nice Try
April 1, 2008 - 22:57 ET by Del DolemonteOf course, when a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge ruled that there just might be a slim possibility of an Iraq connection to 9/11, the media more or less ignored it:
http://www.cbsnews.c...
http://www.usatoday....
And before any responses that the defendants didn't have a chance to defend themselves, I've already heard the excuses. That doesn't erase what this judge concluded, which was that a jury who had considered the evidence might reasonably conclude that there might be some collusion between the two groups.
The Bush-hater's greatest nightmare is that such a connection might turn up. That's why they have been actively tryng to sow doubt about such a possibility thru their mouthpieces in the "objective" mainstream media in the years since the 9/11 attacks.
Why?
Because an Iraq-9/11 connection would not only vindicate the hated Chimpy Bush, but would also eliminate any "legacy" his predecessor could even hope to have.
Don't Cite PBS
April 1, 2008 - 22:44 ET by Del DolemonteWatch out, Jer, if you are going to cite PBS on this stuff then you can't ignore their earlier reporting on Iraq and Saddam's terrorism ties.
Del...I'm not citing
April 2, 2008 - 06:28 ET by JerDel...I'm not citing PBS....I'm citing the language of the resolution which appears to be replicated accurately and in its entirety on the PBS website--i.e. unless you think PBS has tinkered with the wording. Do you?
I'm really not familiar with "their earlier reporting on Iraq and Saddam's terrorism ties". If you are, why not share it with us?
Jer
Is this the link?
April 2, 2008 - 10:38 ET by CobraManThe Resolution does not "strongly" suggest a link between Saddam and 9/11. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of a portion of the actual Resolution. A misinterpretation that is repeated by the MSM time and time again, I believe, to undermine the public’s confidence in the President and his administration.
Here's the only excerpt from the Resolution I could find that deals with Iraq and 9/11:
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to
be in Iraq;"
http://www.whitehous...
This is what most people believe is the administration's claim of a link between Iraq and 9/11, even though that's not what it says. It's a misreading of the actual Resolution (link provided above) that fueled the controversy of a direct link between Saddam and 9/11.
It's important to note that no one, not even the MSM (or the liberal members of Congress) who has made the claim that Bush linked Saddam directly with 9/11, has refuted the fact that Saddam allowed members of al Qaida to reside within Iraq prior to our invasion in 2003.
By continuing to refute a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 (one that never existed and one that Bush never claimed existed), the MSM has fermented the myth and has allowed it to continue for all these years. The fault lies with the MSM and not with President Bush.
There's something about Mary
April 1, 2008 - 16:41 ET by Mica the MagnificentThat photo of Mary Mapes proves beyond a doubt that you should not pose for a picture immediately after your electric shock treatment.
Cougar. . no . . Corsage . . no . . I got it. COURAGE! - - Dan Rather figuring out his broadcast sign off.
Loved her in "planet of
April 1, 2008 - 16:45 ET by SlicksterLoved her in "planet of the Apes".
Hey Mica... Picture
April 1, 2008 - 16:47 ET by bigtimerHey Mica...
Picture perfect Caption-fest now isn't it?
Can you just imagine the comments it would get by the likes of all of us...I'm LOL just thinking about it.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I don't understand...
April 1, 2008 - 21:12 ET by heldmyw...why anyone would give Mapes the time of day.
I wouldn't believe her assessment, her opinion, or a list of facts she read directly from the Bible.
She belongs waiting tables at Denny's.
Maybe.
LOL hmw... Glad you put
April 1, 2008 - 21:59 ET by bigtimerLOL hmw...
Glad you put 'maybe' there...I was going to say don't be dissin' waitresses that way...being a proud ex one myself...she wouldn't last before a shift was over...and tips...we wouldn't even want to go there...now I'm really laughing.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Boy, she ages in that
April 1, 2008 - 23:14 ET by FishFace222Boy, she ages in that picture everytime I see it. She must look really worn in person.
Ironic
April 1, 2008 - 16:52 ET by Red RyderThe caption in the screenshot says Author: Trust and Duty. She seems to be a leader in those categories!
Find the nukes, Mary Mapes
April 1, 2008 - 17:04 ET by Gary HallOh for a bit more fun. Mapes hyperventilated:
First of all, had the Niger issue never arisn it's head - fake or real - nothing would have been different in the Bush administration march to rid the world of Saddam. In fact without the static over the documents - even without the Niger yellow cake story - Bush would have had an easier time gathering support, as all the Niger issue did in the end, was create static for the process. Mapes should have listened to former President Bill Clinton when he marched out on Larry King Live defending President Bush on the entire 16 words bit. His summary: not a big deal - move on and let's bring democracy to the people of Iraq.
What Mapes ought to be spending her time on is finding Senator Carl Levin's (D) documents that led him to make this startling announcement:
Find the nukes, Mary Mapes.
Mary Mapes, Meet Mary Jane...
April 1, 2008 - 19:35 ET by RMRMary, Mary, quite contrary,
How does a lib rep' grow?
With forged documents, and a network willing to rent,
Time for liars like you to air your show.
An Ancient Sage Once Said...
April 1, 2008 - 18:20 ET by Del Dolemonte"A lie isn't a lie, if you believe it."
George Costanza
Unskinny Bop
April 1, 2008 - 18:44 ET by the strugglerIs that C.C. Deville from Poison?
Mapes: "...comparisons
April 1, 2008 - 19:43 ET by JerryMapes: "...comparisons between Memogate and the L.A. Times falling for fake documents about Tupac Shakur's murder are 'simplistic, unfounded, and unfair..."
Well DUH! The LA Times FELL for a hoax; You, on the other hand, PERPETRATED one. Never mind that is is infinitely more egregious to try to topple a presidential candidate than to misinform the public about a rapper. Your durn tooting it's not a fair comparison.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Failed "journalists"
April 1, 2008 - 20:02 ET by iveseenitallTry as they may to explain it away, Mapes and Rather failed in their attempt to topple a sitting Republican president. They lied, lost their careers, and completely ruined whatever they had left of their good names. They will be forever remembered for what they did. It's how the cookie crumbles. Oh that their fate would befall the rest of the corrupt MSM.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
isia... Oh if only we
April 1, 2008 - 20:04 ET by bigtimerisia...
Oh if only we could be so lucky....
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
so a pattern of history doesn't justify accountibility
April 1, 2008 - 19:59 ET by lunaticcringeradioohh don't blame us for not doing our job properly, we just have an agenda to push and the fact that we have a varifiable history of not doing our job ethically and accurately makes no difference that we have a job to do and that is to mislead the public with lies.
that's essentially the impression i get.
lunaticcringeradio
So Tyne Daley's
April 1, 2008 - 20:46 ET by BlazerSo Tyne Daley's a journalist now? I alway's wondered what happened to her after Cagney and Lacey.
That hairdo look's like a prarie fire waiting to happen.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
I thought it was Larry of
April 1, 2008 - 21:19 ET by JerryI thought it was Larry of the Three Stooges, doing a Hair Club commercial.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I am just surprised Mary
April 1, 2008 - 21:32 ET by R D HelmI am just surprised Mary Mapes had the intestinal fortitude to even venture an opinion on such a story, given her somewhat colorful history in this area.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RD... Intestinal
April 1, 2008 - 21:36 ET by bigtimerRD...
Intestinal fortitude? Brainless gall is more like it!..What they heck they may both be related when it comes to the likes of Mapes....
ROFLMAO!
Poor leftist twits...don't have a clue at times do they?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt, LOL-
April 1, 2008 - 21:45 ET by R D HelmI was about to edit my comment and change intestinal fortitude to the nerve.
-I guess I'm just a little slow to catch on today. :-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Asking Mapes to comment on good journalism
April 1, 2008 - 21:46 ET by Matthew Sheffieldis lot like asking Michael Moore on how to lose weight.
When I first heard about this story, I couldn't believe it was real. Mapes's irony detector is severely broken here.