Dan Rather, Apologist

[Guest TheProudDuck]

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

In the unfolding implosion of CBS News' credibility over having based an attack on President Bush's military service on documents that are almost certainly forged, Dan Rather's continued dogged defense of the memos in question is starting to sound like the approach of a lot of religious apologists.

Essentially, he's saying, "The story MUST be true, because it's theoretically possible the documents could have been produced the way my source told me, and it would have been too hard for that (still unnamed) source to forge them.)

Many Muslims argue that Mohammed was functionally illiterate, and that he couldn't have produced the Koran without having it revealed to him. (I think he couldn't have produced it without being stoned, but that's another story.) Other people insist that space aliens must have built Stonehenge, because it was beyond the capability of ancient Britons. Bat will probably have something to say about certain defenses of Mormon scripture offered by some Mormons.

Ultimately, the Book of Mormon stands or falls based on whether the Holy Spirit compels a reader to accept its teachings, after the reader "experiments on the word." The purpose of Mormon apologists is essentially to keep the way clear for people to receive such a witness, by showing that the Book of Mormon's authenticity as an ancient document isn't dispositively contradicted. (See my earlier discussions of faith and reason for why it's problematic for "faith" to contradict physical evidence.) Secular people, though, arguing secular questions, have absolutely no business engaging in FARMS-style apologetics. Their positions stand or fall based on the physical evidence alone -- and if CBS can't produce substantial, credible evidence (as opposed to claiming a hypothetical possibility) for its charges, it shouldn't make them.

The "BS" in CBS doesn't stand for "Broadcasting System" any more.

[Outshined]

It should have been titled, "Dan Rather, Professional Tapdancer", since he's doing a lot of that these days...

[Matt]

But, this to one side: You have to put your trust in: 1) a man who did not know where Vietnam was. And 2) a man who knew where Vietnam was and went there. And lost some of his comrades and friends there, too.

Whenever I see Bush saluting veterans I think: "Yes, easy to salute them now, mate! But where where you when they needed someone to help them pull a wounded buddy out of a burning vehicle? Or from a foxhole?" Oh, yeah. In the Texas National Guard.

It was easier for Mr Bush to join the Texan National Guard. After all he knew where Texas was...

[Outshined]

Ah, he's more than made up for going into the Guard when he was 20. He isn't running on what he was doing thirty-odd years ago, that's Kerry.

The sad thing is that his opponents are resorting to faking military memos to try and throw dirt on him.

[Faerie]

I wonder how the National Guardsmen of today feel when people insult the NG so much?

[john doe]

wonder how the National Guardsmen of today feel when people insult the NG so much?

C'mon, didn't you know? National Guardsmen don't have feelings, they only think about torturing people in prisons. Just Kidding, I salute the jobs all our servicemen do in our name.

I do find it odd, though, how John Kerry is basing his campaign on his military record, and when it came to light that his military "exploits" were questionable, he cried foul and demanded that Bush denounce the detractors. Then, all of a sudden, these faked Bush records pop up and where is Kerry to denounce these fakes? His people are still out there claiming that Bush should answer the questions that the faked records brought up. Isn't there something wrong with this line of thinking?

Bush isn't running on his military record, he's running on his presidential record. And Kerry seems to want us to ignore his senatorial record. He's running on his military record. He wants us to remember that he got some medals 35 years ago, but doesn't want us to remember that he later threw them away, or the fact that he may have shot a kid running away in the back to get one of them. He also can't remember whether he spent Christmas on a covert mission or not. But Bush is expected to find old records not in his control to prove faked documents are wrong?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Matt --

I know it's unfashionable to consider John Kerry anything but Audie Murphy reincarnate, but it sure looks to me as if, patriot though he may well be, Kerry's four months in Vietnam were basically an exercise in resume-padding in an age where military service was pretty much considered mandatory for aspiring politicians. Plus Kerry only joined the Naval Reserves after his application for a draft deferment was rejected: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

By his own specific admission, Kerry volunteered for SWIFT boat duty when the boats were being used for low-risk coastal patrols because he didn't want to get too involved in Vietnam. When Admiral Zumwalt implemented Operation Sea Lords and sent the Swifties up the rivers, where they might actually get shot at, Kerry obtained three Purple Hearts in short order for superficial wounds and bailed out.

You don't have to swallow everything Kerry's fellow Swifties allege (I think they overreach in some of their charges, although the Cambodia one looks pretty irrefutable) to get the impression that Kerry's service, while honorable enough as far as it went (getting shot at takes real courage even if you're missed), doesn't quite match up with his self-cultivated image. I don't think it's irrational for his fellow veterans, many of whom got seriously hurt and stayed in the fight far longer than Kerry did, to be a little annoyed at this poser, especially considering how he traded on his comparatively minor service to tar them as latter-day Genghis Khans.

But we're changing the subject on a subject that isn't much of a subject anyway. (Ask President Dole whether the guy with the better wartime biography always wins the election.) The point is that CBS fell for a forgery. (Michael Moore, if CBS were a conservative outfit, would be screaming CBS LIEEDDD!!!, since everyone knows that falsity alone is enough to establish intentional deceit.) </sarcasm> And now CBS is defending itself with a defense that's silly even in a religious context, let alone a secular one.

[Dravin]

Bush isn't running on his military record, he's running on his presidential record.

On top of that he out right stated that Kerry's service was more worthy of praise than his own.

There are many reasons to dislike both Bush and Kerry, lets not get too hung up on Vietnam.

[Kay]

Originally posted by Matt@Sep 15 2004, 04:09 PM

It was easier for Mr Bush to join the Texan National Guard. After all he knew where Texas was...

Good one, Matt! :)

[Kay]

There are many reasons to dislike both Bush and Kerry...

The most fair (and wise) part of this this thread, in my opinion.

I commend your reality check, Dravin. Thank you.

Kay

[Matt]

Bush isn't running on his military record,

Quite. He isn't. Why? Because he dosn't have one.

The National Guard is a fine military force. In many respects it is like the British Territorial Army. What is questioned is how people like G W Bush used it to hide from Vietnam.

By the way, you might be interested to know that there are Territorial Army SAS units, and they do see active service on covert missions. There is also a Royal Marine version of the TA, I believe they have SBS units, too.

[john doe]

QUOTE]Bush isn't running on his military record,

Quite. He isn't. Why? Because he dosn't have one.

Well,for a man without a record, the Demoncraps sure seem to be trying to beat him up for nothing then, aren't they?

Were you even alive during that time? Do you have any background in what was happening in America at the time? As far as that goes, the only reason Kerry volunteered for swift boats was because he thought they would see no action, either. It wasn't until after he enlisted that swift boats were ordered closer to the war. Most people of draftable age during that time did what they could to ensure their safety from combat duty. Two of my brothers volunteered to avoid being drafted as ground-pounders. My mother prayed every day that my brothers would not be assigned to combat duty there. Does that make her or them as bad as Bush or Kerry? It amazes me that the same people who are upset at GWB for enlisting in the Texas ANG with the charge that he did so to avoid action are willing defend Bill Clinton for his draft-dodging tactics. Demos have no moral high ground when it comes to avoiding combat action in Viet Nam.

By the way, you might be interested to know that there are Territorial Army SAS units, and they do see active service on covert missions. There is also a Royal Marine version of the TA, I believe they have SBS units, too.

Bully for them. It may interest you to know that many of the American soldiers in Iraq on active duty today are reservists and National Guard.

[srm]

Originally posted by Faerie@Sep 15 2004, 05:33 PM

I wonder how the National Guardsmen of today feel when people insult the NG so much?

exacatacally

[srm]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 15 2004, 07:44 PM

Matt --

I know it's unfashionable to consider John Kerry anything but Audie Murphy reincarnate, but it sure looks to me as if, patriot though he may well be, Kerry's four months in Vietnam were basically an exercise in resume-padding in an age where military service was pretty much considered mandatory for aspiring politicians. Plus Kerry only joined the Naval Reserves after his application for a draft deferment was rejected: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

By his own specific admission, Kerry volunteered for SWIFT boat duty when the boats were being used for low-risk coastal patrols because he didn't want to get too involved in Vietnam. When Admiral Zumwalt implemented Operation Sea Lords and sent the Swifties up the rivers, where they might actually get shot at, Kerry obtained three Purple Hearts in short order for superficial wounds and bailed out.

You don't have to swallow everything Kerry's fellow Swifties allege (I think they overreach in some of their charges, although the Cambodia one looks pretty irrefutable) to get the impression that Kerry's service, while honorable enough as far as it went (getting shot at takes real courage even if you're missed), doesn't quite match up with his self-cultivated image. I don't think it's irrational for his fellow veterans, many of whom got seriously hurt and stayed in the fight far longer than Kerry did, to be a little annoyed at this poser, especially considering how he traded on his comparatively minor service to tar them as latter-day Genghis Khans.

But we're changing the subject on a subject that isn't much of a subject anyway. (Ask President Dole whether the guy with the better wartime biography always wins the election.) The point is that CBS fell for a forgery. (Michael Moore, if CBS were a conservative outfit, would be screaming CBS LIEEDDD!!!, since everyone knows that falsity alone is enough to establish intentional deceit.) </sarcasm> And now CBS is defending itself with a defense that's silly even in a religious context, let alone a secular one.

But we're changing the subject on a subject that isn't much of a subject anyway. (Ask President Dole whether the guy with the better wartime biography always wins the election.)

Or George Sr. vs Clinton...

Or how about Gore the only private with body guards?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 18 2004, 05:49 PM

Bully for them. It may interest you to know that many of the American soldiers in Iraq on active duty today are reservists and National Guard.

I can attest to that! I leave for desert training October 1st, which I hope does not mean that I'm in for a third tour of Iraq.

Afghanistan might be nice...

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 15 2004, 07:44 PM

Matt --

I know it's unfashionable to consider John Kerry anything but Audie Murphy reincarnate, but it sure looks to me as if, patriot though he may well be, Kerry's four months in Vietnam were basically an exercise in resume-padding in an age where military service was pretty much considered mandatory for aspiring politicians. Plus Kerry only joined the Naval Reserves after his application for a draft deferment was rejected: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

By his own specific admission, Kerry volunteered for SWIFT boat duty when the boats were being used for low-risk coastal patrols because he didn't want to get too involved in Vietnam. When Admiral Zumwalt implemented Operation Sea Lords and sent the Swifties up the rivers, where they might actually get shot at, Kerry obtained three Purple Hearts in short order for superficial wounds and bailed out.

You don't have to swallow everything Kerry's fellow Swifties allege (I think they overreach in some of their charges, although the Cambodia one looks pretty irrefutable) to get the impression that Kerry's service, while honorable enough as far as it went (getting shot at takes real courage even if you're missed), doesn't quite match up with his self-cultivated image. I don't think it's irrational for his fellow veterans, many of whom got seriously hurt and stayed in the fight far longer than Kerry did, to be a little annoyed at this poser, especially considering how he traded on his comparatively minor service to tar them as latter-day Genghis Khans.

But we're changing the subject on a subject that isn't much of a subject anyway. (Ask President Dole whether the guy with the better wartime biography always wins the election.) The point is that CBS fell for a forgery. (Michael Moore, if CBS were a conservative outfit, would be screaming CBS LIEEDDD!!!, since everyone knows that falsity alone is enough to establish intentional deceit.) </sarcasm> And now CBS is defending itself with a defense that's silly even in a religious context, let alone a secular one.

Hey PD,

I wonder if you would be slamming CBS if what it were claiming were complimentary to Bush?

A couple of other observations:

Why make a deal about why Karey went to Vietnam? The issue is not why he went as much as what he did when he was there. On that point, there is no doubt that he performed admirably. What I do find outrageous is how SOME republicans have tried to say that the military didn't know what it was doing when it gave him those medals. What an INSULT to all the decorated soldiers in ALL of our military conflicts! Such a claim spits on ALL of our soldiers by saying that the medals they got were given by an organization that doesn't know what it is doing.

The fact of the matter is, Karey served, and did so admirably. Bush sat around on his fat ###### and did nothing.

[Dravin]

Such a claim spits on ALL of our soldiers by saying that the medals they got were given by an organization that doesn't know what it is doing.

How does one flow logically from, “The military sometimes gives out unwarranted medals.” to “The military only gives out unwarranted medals?”

[john doe]

Why make a deal about why Karey went to Vietnam?

The fact of the matter is, Karey served

Who is this Kary guy you keep talking about? We are talking about John Kerry in this context, not some other guy named Kary. The one we are talking about shot a kid in the back as he ran away, then he came home and told everyone who would listen that his comrades were all war criminals.

And the only reason anyone is talking about this is that he is basing his campaign on his military record. He INVITED the scrutiny when he turned the spotlight on his own military record. Are we to only look at the parts he wants us to see? And just when will Kerry ask the Pentagon to release ALL of his military records, not just the selected ones he chooses to show? GWB has ordered them Pentagon to show all they have on him, why can't Kerry do the same?

[Matt]

The fact of the matter is, Karey served

Who is this Kary guy you keep talking about?

Well, gee John, Doe, that went really smoothly, hah?

Mocking someone's typographical error by making one of your own!

But don't worry. Maybe nobody'll notice!

[Matt]

John Doe, I am older than you, so, yeah, I was alive then.

And some British people took part in the Vietnam war. With Australian and American forces.

I am aware that some NG and reservists are in Iraq. As are TA volunteers, also.

[john doe]

Yes, but my misimpression of his misspelling was closer than his misspelling of the real guy. All I did was lose a letter, not miscomprehend how the real guy's name is spelled. He probably couldn't find his guy's name on a ballot, if he is even old enough to vote.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 19 2004, 08:44 AM

Why make a deal about why Karey went to Vietnam? The issue is not why he went as much as what he did when he was there. On that point, there is no doubt that he performed admirably.

Unless one is completely asleep these days, there is quite a bit of doubt about what Kerry did while he was there.

Are you deliberately ignoring all the doubt that has been thrown around lately or are you truly unaware of what's been going on?

Either way this is a losing issue for Kerry. Mr "reporting for duty" thinks this campaign is about what he did during 4 months - 30 plus years ago. Enough questions have been raised about what he really did then and his behavior about it afterwards disgusts enough people that everytime he opens his mouth, the non-Kerry die-hards tune him out and roll their eyes. Since those types are in the majority, he ought to take Clinton's advice and shut up. For Kerry that is not so easy to do. He is so egotistical that he thinks that everything he utters is a matter to utmost importance and relevance rather the blather and pomp.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 19 2004, 07:10 PM

Are you deliberately ignoring all the doubt that has been thrown around lately or are you truly unaware of what's been going on?

Quite right!! My faith tells me he served to the best of his abilities in Viet Nam, so I guess there is room for doubt. But, my knowledge tells me Bush was definitely NOT there; no room for an iota of doubt.

[Guest curvette]

I agree with Duck on Dan Rather. What he did was completely irresponsible and inexcusable--especially for a seasoned reporter such as himself. About Vietnam though, I'm not sure we can even hold Vietnam vets or nonvets up to the same standards as the soldiers from WWII or even Korea. The social climate at home was completely different and unsupportive. The enemy was undefined and hard to identify. There simply were no clearcut rules. (Kind of like politics.) I wish they'd leave the whole thing out of their campaigns.

[Faerie]

I agree curvette...I'm highly disappointed that Kerry refuses to acknowledge his crappy Senate career and instead focused on FOUR MONTHS of service that happened over 25 years ago! He was in the Senate for over 20 years!!! I don't care about who served in Vietnam and who didn't...Clinton was the best draft dodger of them all!! Instead of the personal attacks and the "WE WILL FIND OSAMA BIN LADIN!!"...I want to see "I will do THIS and I can prove it based on my voting record and actions in the Senate"