SwiftVets.com

[fortdixlover]

Outright lies....coming from this "trusted news source" that was not too fond of the SwiftVets or President Bush, while givin' all the luv to John Kerry:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051205/content/truth_detector_2.guest.html

RUSH: All right, ladies and gentlemen, listen up. We're going to go back to the Ken Starr quote that was -- or actually a sound bite that aired -- on the very little-watched CBS Evening News on Monday night. We talked about this quite a bit yesterday on Puke Day, and it turns out that the sound bite that you are going to hear is so out of context as to be near criminal, according to Mr. Starr. So I want to play for you first the sound bite. Ken Starr -- Pepperdine University, is where he is now -- and this is how his sound bite ran and how it was reported in the print media a couple days later on the CBS Evening News Monday night. Now, I must tell you that CBS ran this bite within the context of saying that Starr's comments had to do with the Republicans triggering the nuclear option, and they ran this as his thoughts on that.

STARR: This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government. It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret.

RUSH: Would it come as a surprise to you if I were to tell you that Ken Starr was not talking the Republicans triggering the nuclear option when he made that statement? Because he wasn't! I am in receipt of an e-mail written by Ken Starr in which he clarifies this, because they've been inundated at his office from people all over the place who are perplexed, curious, outraged. They don't understand. "Why in the world would you say this about the nuclear option?" Starr said, "I didn't say that about the nuclear option. I was talking about something else." Let me share with you some details. This is an excerpt of the Starr e-mail: "I have now seen the CBS report. Attached is an exchange with Steve Engle, who alerted me earlier today to the other dimensions of the wild misconstruction of what I said in the Gloria Borger interview. Here's a brief background. I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred..."

This is not to me. The e-mail is not to me. "...with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. You know all this too well and indeed painfully well, as we remember the terrible ordeal of Bob Bork in 1987. In the interview I did indeed suggest and have suggested elsewhere that caution and prudence be exercised in shifting or modifying rules but I likewise made clear that the filibuster represents an entirely new use and misuse of a venerable tradition. Anyway our folks here at Pepperdine's public information office are scrambling to get the full transcript of the entire interview but our friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets as used represent, A, my views, or B, what I in fact said. Kindly feel free to share this message with anybody you deem appropriate." Well, the message has been shared with me. So we have something on the order, not quite to the full extent, but we have something on the order of the Dan Rather forged documents. We have Ken Starr, who sat for 20 minutes with Gloria Borger. They then cut up this interview, and applied the sound bite where he said, "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions," to a question that was asked about judicial filibusters that the Democrats are using, and the nuclear option that the Republicans are thinking of triggering.


Those who watched the CBS Evening News on Monday and those who then read reports which quoted from the CBS Evening News are convinced that Ken Starr was discussing the nuclear option when he said, "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." He was not talking about the nuclear option. He was talking about "the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience," Meaning we're not going to have a judge because he is, you know, pro-abortion or anti-abortion; we're not going to have a judge because of the way he's going to rule on cases; we're not going to have a judge because of his ideology. That's what Starr was railing against, and he points out: "Look, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Republicans didn't agree with her judicial philosophy at all. But Clinton won the election. They voted to confirm her, because elections have consequences. The president gets the nominees he wants. This is serious. This is a specific attempt to malign Ken Starr, to misquote him, to take him out of context, and to use the out-of-context snippet or sound bite as an attempt to rally people against the Republicans and their triggering of the nuclear option. About that, again, what Starr did say is that "caution and prudence be exercised in shifting, modifying rules, but I likewise made clear about the nuclear option that the filibuster represents an entirely new use and misuse of a venerable tradition." So the bottom line is that Ken Starr is on the right page. He's on the same page as everybody else about this but CBS sought to purposely take his sound bite out of context, and apply it to the nuclear option. Here it is again. This is the sound bite. It's audio sound bite 22, Mike, and it is Ken Starr as CBS presented him talking about the Republicans' attempt to use the nuclear option.

STARR: This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government. It may prove to have the kind of long term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret.

RUSH: He was not talking about the nuclear option. Once again, as CBS purposely misrepresented. He was not talking about the nuclear option whatsoever. He was talking about the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. Now, I remember saying yesterday after playing this bite, I said, "This is absurd." Remember me saying that, my friends? This is absurd. It's stupid. How is the nuclear option "an assault on the judicial branch of government"? That's what didn't make sense to me yesterday -- and, I'll tell you what, I'm equally as guilty because I didn't suspect CBS of playing a game at all, and that's irresponsible on my part. From now on whenever CBS does anything under the guise of news, that purports to shift the discussion on an ideological basis they are not to be trusted. There is a reason nobody is watching the CBS Evening News anymore, and it's not who anchors it. It's who's producing this garbage and who's putting this garbage together. Maybe in part the anchors here and there, but the bottom line is: CBS News cannot be trusted, because CBS News is not news. It's CBS commentary and editorializing under the guise of news. They are having to still make things up, take things out of context, basically lie about what people have said, in order to further an agenda, and the agenda in this case is, as usual at CBS, to harm Republicans and conservatives -- and in this case they used Ken Starr to do it. Now, what does this also tell you about their impressions of Starr? Because during the Clinton years, they hated this guy. They despised Ken Starr. Now all of a sudden they trot him out, and they're acting like he's the lone voice of reason among Republicans. Why in the world would they take a guy who they hate?

Why in the world would they take a guy who they despise and twist his words, take them out of context, as a means to hurt Republicans? The answer is: Because secretly they know he has integrity. They know he has credibility, and they know when they play this sound bite out of context that everybody is going to believe Ken Starr. "He said it! You gotta accept it!" It's not ultimate compliment to Starr in the sense of their impression of him, but it is the ultimate insult in terms of what they did. They actually fabricated essentially an opinion Starr has about the nuclear option that he doesn't hold, and they cut up the interview with him and they pieced it together in such a way as to make it look like he was talking about something that he was not discussing. He's like all of us. He thinks that this focus on judicial philosophy... This is an attack on Democrats. What Starr actually did was criticize Democrats. This business of judicial philosophy, deciding these seven nominees aren't worth it because of their judicial philosophy -- which is exactly what Bush has said, by the way. Bush said it's an argument over judicial philosophy, a code word, but Starr picks it up and says this argument over judicial philosophy is going to come back and boomerang against the Senate and they're going to regret it down the road. He was not saying that about the nuclear option. I wanted to pass this on to you and get it out there because to me it's huge. It is gigantic. It is. It is beyond irresponsible because it was done purposely. It can't be irresponsible and purposely done at the same time. Irresponsible would mean somebody wasn't paying attention. This is worse than irresponsible. It's dishonest. It's cheating. It's whatever you want to attach to it. But from now on I'm going to promise you anything comes from CBS, screw it. The first impression is going to be just like when I read the New York Times: Gee, what if that's true?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, as you know Ken Starr -- I think I mentioned this. Ken Starr has asked CBS for the entire transcript of his interview. They are refusing. CBS is refusing to give Ken Starr the full transcript of his interview. Now, given that it's CBS and given what we already know, there are some intelligent conclusions that we can draw, and that is that Starr is right and CBS is not going to give him the evidence to prove it, leaving it his word against theirs. Well, I know whose word I'm going to accept in this, and that would be Ken Starr's. So he wants the full transcript; they're not releasing it. The full transcript would tell the tale here. CBS once again, it appears, has things to hide.
_________________
"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" - Thomas Jefferson on paying ransom to Muslim corsairs (pirates).

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

My first reaction to this was, "INCREDIBLE!!!!"

Sadly, the reaction was incorrect - this is not at all incredible - in fact, it shouldn't surprise us in the slightest if this is exactly what happened.

Maybe with their ratings in the basement, they figured they might as well go ahead and BE the "Air America" that they have kept hidden for so long.

I thought things might get better at CBS News after Dan Blather left, but then I remember Bernard Goldberg's book and realize that of course it's not going to get any better. That leftist slant is not going to do anything except become more overt and strident.

That's really some track record they've got going.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[LewWaters]

When I first heard of this Ken Starr "quote," I smelled a rat, somewhere. It just didn't sound like the Ken Starr that we have all heard speak before. I decided to keep quiet and see whot developed and apparently, it has.

Sadly, too many still follow CBS's fabrications department and accept it as news. Also interesting they refuse to release the transcript of the original interview. Maybe a lawsuit is in order? Surely someone has a copy of it somewhere.
_________________
Clark County Conservative

[Deuce]

Lew,

You're spot on...back in an earlier lifetime, I worked for Westinghouse (before they bought CBS),...and took their 'Media Course' in the 70's. It was that course that thousands took in order to learn how best to answer that age old reporter's question "When did you last beat your wife"....Editorial License has been media's mainstream now for more than 30 years. The real shame is that our schools actually brainwash the kids into believing that Media is the true God, when in reality Media essentially deals mostly in various forms of fabrication (you get to pick your poison by changing the channel)! Never watched TV the same after that course, believe me....the Media manipulation gets easier and easier to spot, now that the left has the country so used to it, tho!

Deuce,
Cam Ranh '70-71