Mike Eberhart | September 14, 2004
50 Other Things CBS News Believes

The lost city of Atlantis
The Easter Bunny
The Tooth Fairy
Pro Wrestling
Snipe hunting
That’s Dan’s own hair
Jenna Jameson’s chest – natural as can be
Emails from Nigeria
The Boogey Man
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Christmas in Cambodia
You can get real cheese out of an aerosol can
Milli Vanilli’s vocals
“I’ll still respect you in the morning.”
Dogs eat homework
Each and every bit of crap that has ever dribbled out of Michael Moore’s mouth
The Great Pumpkin
A Kerry operative + questionable documents * disgruntled Texan = hot story!
“I’ve never seen one so big.”
I’m actually not writing this in my pajamas
The blogosphere can be ignored
Herbal Viagra really works
Elvis hangs out at convenience stores
“We’re with the government, and we’re here to help.”
Faked moon landings
Libby’s Potted Meat Food Product contains actual meat
That hook-hand guy story
That they have better fake documents than the Weekly World News
“This will only hurt at first.”
The expiration date on Cheet-ohs
Michael Jackson’s “skin condition”
Keeping Dan over Connie Cheung was the right move
Webcam girls who just can’t wait to meet you
The King of Queens? Comedy gold!
Tinfoil stops the space rays
Girls really will honk if they’re horny
Ginsu knives never need sharpening
Most any old thing they get in the mail
Dihydrogen monoxide ought to be banned for safety reasons
This list could very well have been produced on a 30-year-old typewriter
“What’s the frequency, Kenneth?”
In unbiased reporting
Incoherent aphorisms – Washington insider status * ranch out West somewhere = folksy charm
They’re somehow helping John Kerry
Adolf Hitler’s handwritten recipe for matzo ball soup
“Courage”
We still believe them
That unblinking eye logo ain’t at all creepy
This post contains 50 items

Jackie Mason | September 14, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | September 14, 2004
Yes, it's just making fun of CBS News. Not meant to start anything...

Anna Gregoline | September 14, 2004
What a bizarre list - half of those don't even make sense.

Mike Eberhart | September 14, 2004
I thought it was pretty amusing. I don't know what half you don't get, I think almost all of them made sense. It's supposed to mean that CBS news believes in all of those items. That is all.

Anna Gregoline | September 14, 2004
I’m actually not writing this in my pajamas

This list could very well have been produced on a 30-year-old typewriter

“What’s the frequency, Kenneth?”


I don't really understand these, I guess. If someone could fill me in, I'd appreciate it!


And so, CBS believes that Bush's doctored documents are real? Or did they doctor them? I'm behind on something here.

Mike Eberhart | September 14, 2004
Yes, I agree, the "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" one is dumb. That one didn't make sense to me either. I'll give you that. The rest, however, are kind of funny. It's saying that CBS believes, and are trying to defend that the documents they have are for real. Except that officer's that served with the LT. Col., that "supposedly" created the documents, say that he would never have created something like this, plus the way the documents were created couldn't have been done with the technology available then. The Lt. Col.'s own son came out and say they are fake because he and his family haven't ever seen any secret documents his father kept.

Plus, I looked at the "CYA" document, and I can tell you, coming from an officer standpoint, I would never create a document called that and stick in my filing cabinent. If you look at all the documents that CBS lists on their website, then look at the last one titled CYA, the language, and the style of writing completely changes, and it's not written on letterhead like the others. When I was in, every memo I created was always on letterhead, even Memo's for Record. So, I would also have to say that the documents really do look bogus.

Anna Gregoline | September 14, 2004
Oh ok. I haven't really seen any pictures of real or fake documents, so I don't really have an opinion on them. I'm really tired of hearing about military service involving the candidates - it's so not important to me.

Anna Gregoline | September 14, 2004
Oh ok. I haven't really seen any pictures of real or fake documents, so I don't really have an opinion on them. I'm really tired of hearing about military service involving the candidates - it's so not important to me, so I've steered clear of news involving it.

Mike Eberhart | September 14, 2004
Me too, I'm really getting tired of it myself. I only brought this up because someone is using these documents that are supposedly from a LT Col., who is dead by the way, who can't defend if they are real or not.

Anna Gregoline | September 14, 2004
Yeah, that seems really wrong. It seems this always happens in an election year - they get focused on stuff the public couldn't care less about.

Mike Eberhart | September 14, 2004
Now this is really starting to get stupid. Sorry for the non-link. I still can't seem to get this html thing down.....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/bush.professor/index.html

Anna Gregoline | September 14, 2004
Whoops.

Lori Lancaster | September 14, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 14, 2004
I tried to show him too but it made a big mess.

Lori Lancaster | September 14, 2004
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | September 14, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 14, 2004
"I believe thats a lyric from a song from the midnineties."

It is - REM did it, but I don't understand the reference.

Lori Lancaster | September 14, 2004
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | September 14, 2004
Fixing the tag. No more bold!

Steve West | September 14, 2004
Several years ago (1986, I believe), Dan Rather was attacked by a mentally deranged man who proceeded to beat and kick him. The entire time the mugger was screaming, "Kenneth, what is the frequency?" Rather could lend no light to the situation as it made no sense to him either. Later after the man was captured, he explained that he heard voices in his head that he was convinced were being broadcast at a specific frequency. He thought that if he could learn the frequency, he could then block the signal. I don't recall the significance of the name "Kenneth". This incident was the inspiration for the REM song.

Melissa Erin | September 14, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 15, 2004
Thanks for the explanation, Steve, I never knew that.

Still doesn't make sense in the fifty list though. I'd strike that one.

Kris Weberg | September 15, 2004
Apparently, the man's schizophrenia was such that he believed the "Kenneth" in question -- some kind of higher-end CBS broadcasting tech -- was part of a Cold War type mind-control conspiracy. In that sense, it's emblematic of delusional faith in improbable assertions.

The thing about the CBS memos, of course, is that even if they're faked, Bush's record still has the same problems that prompted the questions about his service to start with. The memos aren't eveidence of a service gap so much as an unflattering explanation of why the apparent service gap went unpunished.

The fact that a probably false explanation for Bush's fishy service record has been proffered doesn't make the original fishy service records untrue or unreal, any more than a faulty explanation for gravity -- and physics is awash in them -- makes gravity untrue or unreal.

Jackie Mason | September 15, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 15, 2004
To quote Mike,

It's saying that CBS believes, and are trying to defend that the documents they have are for real.

John E Gunter | September 15, 2004
Taking a break from the discussion at hand to start an html lesson.

The way to format an html link follows...

<A TARGET=_blank HREF="urlgoesherenospaces" target="_blank">Your Link Text Here</A>

Now, if you were going to link to the Celebrity Goo Game Site, the Tragic Comedy Section, it would look like this...

<A TARGET=_blank HREF="/tc_current.php" target="_blank">Tragic Comedy</A>

That will cause the site to open in a new browser window. All of the html tags should really be in caps, but I'm so used to Unix that I type most of my commands in lower case.

Ok, you may resume your regularly scheduled discussion.

Edit:

Scott must have his system set up to recognize certain words and capitalized some of my html tags.

John

Lori Lancaster | September 15, 2004
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | September 15, 2004
You can make the tags show the less than sign and greater than sign on the browser if you type the a & the l the t and a ; for the less than sign and a & the g the t and a ; for the greater than sign.

Make sure they are all together and the browser will know that you want to show an html tag instead of creating an actual link. Just make sure that you type it out again if you edit your post otherwise you get a link instead of the text.

John

Jackie Mason | September 16, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 17, 2004
Well, I always wondered what would happen if two people tried to post at the exact same moment in time, and it seems to have finally happened. I haven't had a free moment to go online all week, so I missed the glitch and now I'm too tired to bother fixing it days later. There are a few old discussions that got screwed up in the move to TC4 (2 discussions merging into 1, or 1 discussion splitting into 2), but I didn't think we'd create new glitches as we went...

In the new TC I'll put something in to help with that, an applet that converts an address into a link, or maybe just some HTML guidelines.

Sorry, not much to say on the CBS controversy because I have read little about it. Has anyone compared this event to the controversy over "The Reagans" last year?

Kris Weberg | September 20, 2004
I might once again point out how well this worked out for Bush, in the end. The White House has yet to produce anything that indicates that Bush completed his service in the time period he was supposed to -- the "honor points" that have been cited here and there have to do with minimum time put in for retirement, and do not represent completion of service within the designated period of time -- and, as yet, no one can explain quite why Bush decided to skip a medical examination in 1972 and get himself grounded, a serious shame in the ANG anywhere.

But because CBS fucked up, all that matters is that a set of memos that purported to explain how Bush fialed to serve are fake. The fact that he didn't serve is off the map. And in the future, any reference to Bush's service or lack thereof will, in most people's minds, be about the fact that CBS was duped, and duped badly, about memos tangential to the fact that Bush did not honor his Air Guard commitment.

If anyone here does thinkt hey can prove Bush fulfilled his service, I urge them to contact these folks. Despite the fake memos, no one's collected on the challenge yet, and if the memos settle everything, you'd think someone would've cashed in by now.

Melissa Erin | September 20, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 20, 2004
It IS on Bush. He's the one with missing service time, and no documents to prove that he was where he was supposed to be or had a reason not to be there. It's totally on him.

Melissa Erin | September 20, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 20, 2004
No, that part is not on him. But most of Kris' post dealt with the fact that the documents are not the issue. The fact that he was AWOL from the service is, and that's being glossed over, in part because the focus is on CBS's blunder.

Melissa Erin | September 20, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 20, 2004
I don't really have time to wade through it myself, but here's a start.

More alarming than this to me is Bush's record for drunk driving.

Jackie Mason | September 20, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 20, 2004
That's cool and all, but the White House can forge documents much more convincingly than the ones provided to CBS.

Melissa Erin | September 20, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 20, 2004
Oh he's real alright - with prejudices and arrogance and lots more to boot. He's not some super uber kind holy man that so many people seem to think he is.

I honestly don't understand at this point how people can defend Bush on most things, but then again I don't understand a lot of things.

Melissa Erin | September 20, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | September 20, 2004
I wish it would go away next, personally. There are much bigger issues at stake, such as a preemptive strike war that is still killing thousands of people, and for what real end?

Jackie Mason | September 20, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | September 21, 2004
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. It takes a little more than just him pressing a button and blowing up the US. There are a lot of checks that take place before the release of nuclear weapons is authorized.

Anthony Lewis | September 21, 2004
Those checks you talk about are slowly BUT SURELY fading away.

Melissa Erin | September 21, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | September 21, 2004
And how do you know that they are slowly fading away. You have no idea. I currently work for the military and I can tell you that they are not.

Scott Horowitz | September 21, 2004
First off, I doubt that terrorists will use a plane again. 1) They like to do something different. 2) I think the people on the plane will stop them this time. I would be worried about more terrorist attacks considering how much the world hates us though. But I don't live my life like that. I went out in Manhattan on 9/11 2 weeks ago. I do what I want. If you stop doing thing because of the terrorists, then they've already won without killing another person.

Anna Gregoline | September 21, 2004
Mike, I think it's fairly obvious that Jackie was joking.

I always thought that terrorists just might use planes again - I mean, kind of like a classic Simpsons "Ha ha!" It would ruin airplane travel forever if it happened again.

I'm also surprised that after 9/11 we didn't see suicide bombers here in America.

Mike Eberhart | September 21, 2004
I understand that she was joking, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not like there's a big red button on the President's desk that says "Nuke the World" on it. It's a very complex system that has to happen before that would take place.

As for suicidie bombers, I think we will probably see that here at some point. If and when that does happen though, that's when I see the formation of private militia's taking place and taking justice into their own hands. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I think that may happen.

Jackie Mason | September 21, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | September 21, 2004
Mike, I would argue that the so-called Bush Doctrine expands the President's war powers greatly. I realize that this is irrelevant to the "nuclear" question, and I also realize we could probably debate (unprofitably) whether the "Bush Doctrine" is good or bad, but I do think that the notion of the War on Terror does differ greatly from wars or police actions of the past, and that it represents a significant policy shift that does make it "easier" to go to war, to use military force, and to engage military and federal resources via executive power rather than through legislative approval of specific deployments.

Mike Eberhart | September 21, 2004
I wasn't talking about going to war. Going to war using conventional means can happen at anytime. I was just talking about the nuclear aspects of it. That was all.

Mike Eberhart | September 21, 2004
Oh, airline travel as it is, is in pretty bad shape. Lambert International here in St. Louis is in sad shape for airlines. Then you have Mid-America airport which no one uses, they keep trying to bring in low budget airlines, but they just keep going out of business. If there was another terrorist attack with the airlines, it would finish them off.

Kris Weberg | September 21, 2004
Constitutionally, going to war usng conventional means requires an act of Congress. Under the "Bush Doctrine," that requirement is greatly loosened, and we can wage what are publicly called Wars, use military force and means, and yet not be at war ina technical, juridical sense.

That is a change, and there are arguments for an against the change.

Anna Gregoline | September 21, 2004
As far as I can see, it means the President can do whatever he wants.

Mike Eberhart | September 21, 2004
It's been that way for awhile. Vietnam was not a war. It was technically a "Police Action". Yet, everyone called it a war. When it comes to something like that, yes, the President can do whatever he wants, Not just Bush, but past Presidents as well. Anyway, I don't know how we got onto this topic, I didn't intend to get into a debate about going to war or not. I know you're trying to get me to defend Bush and his "Doctrine", but I'm not. I don't feel like it and it doesn't do any good anyway.

Anna Gregoline | September 21, 2004
Vietnam was a war in every sense of the word, if not technically, and we lost, despite the official party line on that too.

Bush has done more of what he wants and ignored more "rules" than any other president in that area however.

We got on this topic because you started attacking Jackie's joke about the nuclear button. Just to be clear.

Mike Eberhart | September 21, 2004
I didn't attack it, I just made it clear that there are strict regulations on nuclear release. At no time did I start discussing going to war and Bush's doctrine, and the expansion of his powers. Everyone else keeps trying to get that going.

Yes, Vietnam was a war, but officially it was a Police action, and I'm not denying that we lost that war. It was run very poorly, and the military didn't get support that they needed.

Anna Gregoline | September 21, 2004
You maybe didn't attack it per se, but you definitely jumped on Jackie for making an innocent joking comment. This is why often I feel like things get out of hand - because people automatically get defensive when no one was attacking them or saying anything incorrect or wrong, really. Maybe I'm reading your tone wrong, and if I am, I'm sorry, but this is often just jovial discussion, not any real debate until joking points are suddenly taken seriously.

Kris Weberg | September 21, 2004
I don't really think that Vietnam, though an undeclared war, was a particularly strong precedent for the Bush Doctrine that has shaped our conduct of the War on Terrorism.

Vietnam, even after the so-called "Tonkin Resolution," was diffferent than the current Bush doctrine, in that the war was still limited to a recognized territory, and had a politically, geographically, and politically recognized enemy in the Viet Cong. Moreover, the end of the action was capable of definition -- there was an identifiable mission goal, albeit one that was not adequately planned for. The geographic limitation was why the bombing of Cambodia was considered illegal by many, and is considered so to this day.

The current "War on Terror," in contrast, is geographically unlimited in that any territory can become its staging ground virtually byexecutive fiat; , lacks any well-defined optimum outcome or mission goal, in that its definition of "terrorist" is elastic, and could include a wide range of groups, as well as lacking an overarching point-by-point plan of mission success; and involves engaging opponents we do not even tacitly recognize politically -- and cannot so recognize -- nor, in many cases, can we identify them by national allegiance. It is a war, not against a nation or nations, nor even against a nationally-specific political organization, but against a wide network of often transnational and loosely afilliated groups based on a common use of terrorist tactics.

It is a radically different war, and the "Bush Doctrine" effectively plots and constitutes it as such.

Scott Hardie | September 22, 2004
Is our country ever going to go to "war" again? A formal declaration of war would require another nation to attack us, and Iran gaining the nuke is the only scenario in which that's even remotely likely. The notion of declaring war seems as silly today as slapping someone with a white glove to declare a duel.

It seems to me that Jackie's comment about Bush accidentally pushing the button is not about the existence of such a button, but about how Bush could get away with such a ludicrous blunder with little consequence among the American voting public. He's nigh invulnerable.


Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.


Other Discussions Started by Mike Eberhart

Russia's Now in the Game

Found this article talking about Russia and their possible response to their latest terrorist attack. Go »

Interesting Videos.....Or Whatever

Thought I would start a thread to post interesting videos in. Here's a pretty neat video. This girl is nuts for doing this though. Go »

Check This Out!!! What Do the Other Goo Game Players Think?

http://musicdistricts.com/boards/showthread.php?p=6397 Go »

Kerry, the 4-Month Warrior

This is from the epilogue of his 1971 anti-war book, The New Soldier, the following: "We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags. Go »

Gov. Rod B....

First off, those of you that know my politics, know that I'm a conservative and a republican. So, I am willing to give credit when it's due. Go »

24 Discussion

Ok, so did anyone here watch 24 last night? If so, does anyone know who the guy was that played the VP of Security for McLennan-Forster? Go »