[juantamad]

Now that that article has been thoroughly discredited,I wonder how many articles put out by that crew of Marpes/Rather etc.. is tainted.
Not politically motivated, my a...s

jt

[linskyjack]

Yeah---I find the situation with Dan Rather and CBS to be similar to the one at Abu Gharib----where pundits from the right kept saying that the abuse was an anomaly and that "we" dont treat people like that. Perhaps the situation at CBS should be viewed that way---Dont try to turn this into the leftist press trying to destroy the president incident. That will only play among the radical right.

[rawmeat]

If it only plays among the radical right, it is because the extremist left can't see the truth when it bites them on the nose. They were after Bush for more than 5 years, and the only evidence was forged documents that just happened to appear days before the election? Some coincidence if they were not out to affect the election. The liberal press has had a free ride for so long they think they are mainstream. Their liberal bial is surpased only by their egos.

[linskyjack]

rawmeat---they (the radical right ) were after Clinton as soon as he announced he was running for president. What goes around comes around---your party and people like Karl Rove have created this monster. Don't be so sensitivie.

[bassetman]

Payback is a *****!

[linskyjack]

Yup--and I knew that this would happen---the guy who followed Clinton was going to pay the price. Maybe after Bush's second term is over, things will get back to some semblence of civility. Until then---lets get down and dirty.

[LANMaster]

CBS News

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

rawmeat---they (the radical right ) were after Clinton as soon as he announced he was running for president. What goes around comes around---your party and people like Karl Rove have created this monster. Don't be so sensitivie.

Yes, but the fact you are obscuring is the people who went after Clinton were right wing operatives. I've got no problem with left wing hacks like Begala going after Bush, but this is Dan Rather and CBS news. They profess to have ethics and are responsible for reporting news, not creating it. You can rationalize this anyway you want, but what it does is simply add more to the mountain of evidence that the mainstream press is bias against the right and that news reported is bias. Thats why you lefties are always coming up with conspiracy theories because your view of reality is so slanted.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Payback is a *****!

Actually, the assault on Presidents started with the left going after Nixon, so technically Clinton was payback for that.

[LANMaster]

Hiya Chris!

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Actually, the assault on Presidents started with the left going after Nixon, so technically Clinton was payback for that.

Actually the assault on the presidents started with Adams.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Actually the assault on the presidents started with Adams.

Well, you are correct that political attacks have been going on for a long time, but there used to be a certain respect or at least boundries that weren't crossed. As an example, it is pretty much common knowledge today that JFK liked to, shall we say, frolick around in and out of the Whitehouse. In those days, reporters would never dream of invading that privacy. Today, that would be all over the news. Additionally, reporters pretty much stayed out of the politicians personal finances and business dealings, etc.--today that stuff is put under a microscope.

The really underhanded, dirty stuff started with Nixon, in my opinion. I'm not saying it started with the left, it just happened to be Nixon in office when that era of nothing sacred came into play. I think it would have occurred no matter who was President or what they did or didn't do.

[linskyjack]

I agree with your point about boundries. I can also agree that the nastiness started with Nixon, but remember the times----very chaotic, very rebellious, and of course Agnew and Nixon didn't help things.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I agree with your point about boundries. I can also agree that the nastiness started with Nixon, but remember the times----very chaotic, very rebellious, and of course Agnew and Nixon didn't help things.

Yes, but the press was full of nabobs of negativisms.

[holy_saiyan1]

I've always thought that the media was sort of trying to relieve the glory days of Vietnam and Nixon, when journalists were heroes for revealing Nixon's sneakiness and for rallying a vocal and naive generation against the US's actions in Vietnam.

Can you say "midlife crisis," anyone?