"No doubt the same Rightwing blogosphere that was so outraged about the last 60 Minutes report to embarrass a sitting U.S. President will be equally outraged and demand retraction and full accountability for the latest 60 Minutes report as well. Right?"

It will be a test of their integrity.

On a related note, FOX News Greta Van Sustern proves CBS got it wrong on another story, this about losing health insurance because of Obamacare. What is happening at once trusted CBS these days? http://www.dailykos.com/...e-Plan-Loss-Horror-Story

Good work exposing this guys lies. CBS should never have put out this without more verification.

Right wing blogosphere?
Dan Blather
Proportional font
Lawsuit dismissal on appeal
Summary: Total crock of shit
Good try (i.e., swing and a miss)

The one concern I have, Brad, is that we not lose sight of the injustice that CBS meted out to Dan Rather and his lead producer, Mary Mapes.

The September 8, 2004 60 Minutes investigative report dealt with the preferential treatment that led to George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard and the question of whether the Commander-in-Chief had gone AWOL.

The airing of the report not only led to Rather’s resignation but Mapes' sacking. Mapes had earlier been responsible for the CBS airing of the first Abu Ghraib photos, which so embarrassed the Bush/Cheney regime.

The story was grounded upon two basic elements --- a candid concession of former TX Lt. Governor Ben Barnes that he had pulled strings to get young George into the National Guard --- an assignment that would permit George W. to avoid service in Vietnam, and a series of documents that support the claim that George W. had failed to fulfill his service obligations.

Mapes, as well as Rather, insists that the documents CBS obtained from former Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, which showed that Bush had gone AWOL in April 1972, were authentic.

Describing the explosion of right wing accusations to the effect that the documents were forgeries as being “totally and completely wrong,” Mapes told Amy Goodman that after the fall out, she continued “to research and find examples from within the National Guard archives…that showed all the type face issues and proportional spacing…they accused us of having overlooked, those examples were all in place in the archives. So their complaints were complete B.S.”

Rather and Mapes got it right, but, like ACORN, it appears that the strength of the right wing noise machine has obscured the truth and prevented them from being vindicated in the MSM.

Hmmm. Thanks for the reference to "proportional spacing," Davey Crocket. Way to prove the sticking power of what Mapes has aptly described as "complete B.S."

Ernest #6
This story has stood the test of time. Total fraud. Blather and Mapes wanted to believe the lie so they got trapped in the deceit.

Ernest...do Blather a favor and represent him with another lawsuit with your proof...split the 70M between you and then give some to Brad.

Bull shit lies surrounding Benghazi are sucked in and reguritated inside the Right-Wing Fart Bubble. They cross link to each other absorbing and re-emitting each other lies until the only thing left amongst conservative bloggers are each others fart. The Right-Wing Fart Bubble.

GEG #8

Well said!

Davey Crocket @ 4:

As usual, you miss the point. By a mile. Setting aside your silly (and long ago disproved) "proportional font" nonsense, if you feel that 60 Minutes' Dan Rather report was inaccurate, and that he was properly fired, I presume you are also in favor of an investigation of Lara Logan's report and for the story to be retracted and her fired if it's found to be fraudulent.

Correct? Or are you, in fact, the partisan hypocrite that you have proven yourself to be for so long here?

Another swing and miss by the utterly misinformed Davey Crockett.

Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS was not dismissed because a court found that Rather had erred in his Bush went AWOL story. The suit was dismissed because a New York court ruled that there was no breach of contract in that CBS continued to pay "Rather $6 million annual salary after the disputed 2004 broadcast under the 'pay or play' provision of his contract."

But, hey Davey, why let little inconvenient details, like the facts behind the dismissal, get in the way of your spinning a good right wing yarn?

Sad that Davey Crocket @9 didn't so much as understand that Grung_e_Gene @8 had just called him and the other right wing trolls out for their Benghazi "bull shit."

Yes, Davey, what GEG had to say was "well said."

60 Minutes used to tweak my interest years ago, before the botched Don Siegelman interview which only ended up making Karl Rove look like an evil genius, instead of a complete thug.

I just happened to turn it on after about 2 years, just to see what was on, and I see it zooming into a Google map of Benghazi, accompanied by breathless reporting. Whatever Benghazi was, it is hardly the hotbed of American death on the planet. The uninsured in America puts that story to shame: HELL, lightening strikes in America puts that story to shame.

Philo Farnsworth's brilliant invention - envisioned as a tool for education - got turned off as fast as I could make it do that.

And YES, the story wreaks of Dan Rather, but Dan Rather didn't wreak. He is a reporter with guts.

My favorite radio host was on Fox "news" around the same time Dan Rather tried to alert Americans to the danger of letting Bush-the-lesser steal a second election in 2004.

You're right: that's the present governor of Ohio, and previous Fox "news" "Heartland" host.

The other guy has an obvious fake smile on his face throughout the segment.

You better watch now, because it may disappear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aP5t-GhdNg

Honestly!

Didn't they used to call this "old news".

I mean, honestly.

It is interesting how the MSN not only smeared Rather and Mapes by describing the event as “Rathergate,” but by falsely claiming that these two esteemed journalists had ignored the self-serving claims that W had volunteered to serve in Vietnam. (Mapes included that questionable claim in her book.)

Anyone who served in Vietnam, like myself, knows that the “volunteer” assertion is a load of crap. Anyone who was insane enough to volunteer for Vietnam service (my service was involuntary --- I was drafted) knew damn well that he wouldn’t get there by serving in the Air National Guard.

If you wanted to go, you joined the regular army, the marines or the air force. The only time I encountered the National Guard was in basic training at Ft. Ord, CA. Guys who wanted to avoid Vietnam put their names on a waiting list to get into the Guard. W had the connections to jump over that list --- a fact attested to by former TX Lt Gov. Ben Barnes, who pulled the strings at the request of W’s influential father.

Bottom line: never a shred of evidence that the Killian documents were genuine. Plenty of evidence to indicate otherwise. Blather and Mapes got sucked into believing what they wanted to believe.

Show me proof if otherwise.

I tend to believe Wikipedia's accounts of Davey Crocket

After his death, he continued to be credited with acts of mythical proportion.

Time for a name change.

What "evidence" is that, Davey? To date, all you've pointed to is the long-since discredited "proportional spacing" B.S.

But then, like most right wing propagandists, Davey is an astute student of the Joseph Goebbels "Big Lie" propaganda technique.

Just keep repeating the same lie, over-and-over. Never concede any level of validity in what the other side has to say. Sooner, or later, sans a shred of evidence, the students of the Big Lie technique think that their lies will be accepted as truth.

BTW Davey. Still waiting for you to answer the question Brad posed @10. You haven't, and I am supposing, you never will because partisan, right wing propagandists will never concede that which does not further their right wing agenda.

It doesn't matter to right wing propagandists if the CBS Benghazi story was a complete fabrication, analogous to the WMD tales spun by "Curveball" and the duplicitous, Bush/Cheney regime.

Since it fits the bash-Obama-about-anything-and-everything agenda, why be troubled by something so trifling as the truth?

Re Larry Bergan @18.

When I was a child, I kept scratching my head whenever I heard The Ballad of Davey Crockett. I thought they were saying that he was "killed in a bar when he was only three."

Actually, the tune made the absurd claim that Crockett had killed a bear when he was only three.

A perfect example of what wikipedia describes as "acts of mythical proportion" but no doubt quite credible for our resident right wing propagandist, who seeks to spin new myths under the same nom de guerre.

Well Ernest, I was scratching my head at five, wondering why I was supposed to like "romper room" and the "magic mirror".

SuperMan was a different story! But I was five.

I used to fulfill my Superman fantasies by jumping off the couch.

Turns out to take a lot longer.

Davey Crocket:

Once again, you are welcome to convince yourself of anything you like. You are welcome to ignore the evidence that Bush went AWOL, and that the White House at the time never even disputed the charges.

That is not what this article is about. Nor is it what my question to you was about. The one you've failed to answer despite all of your responses here.

So, I guess I'll have to ask you a new question: Is it because you are too cowardly, or just too much of a partisan hack hypocrite, or both, to answer my original question?

Brad @23

You are so funny. I hope that your devoted following (all seven of them) continue to send you money so that I can be entertained.

My comments in this thread were directed to:
"At the time, the Rightwing blogosphere was furious about what they perceived as a fraudulent report making it on to 60 Minutes. They demanded that Dan Rather and the producers of the report were attempting to embarrass Bush and should be fired. Eventually, they were, even though it was never conclusively determined that the documents at the heart of the story were fraudulent and no evidence was found to suggest that any of those working on the story believed the story was inaccurate when it aired."

I did not say whether or not Bush went AWOL...that is your strawman.

I said that the documents were never shown to be authentic. They were not!

Thus the ultra right-wing network, CBS, fired Blather. Moreover, Blather has tried to clear himself without success.

You seem to think the documents were authentic. Show me.

You will not because you cannot.

The rest of you will just make superman jokes or jokes about the great Davey Crockett.

Davey Crocket:

Heavy man, heavy.

Going to have to spend hours combing over your last comment.

From a right vs. wrong perspective I'd say if 60 Minutes KNOWINGLY reported something false then they should be held accountable. I don't see how this gets turned into a right vs. left argument, I think it should be about right vs. wrong...

For Ernie @ 19 who is so worried that Davey Crocket is somehow going to damage Obama, let's look at your statement closely:

"Just keep repeating the same lie, over-and-over. Never concede any level of validity in what the other side has to say. Sooner, or later, sans a shred of evidence, the students of the Big Lie technique think that their lies will be accepted as truth."

Obama is also an astute student of the Joseph Goebbels "Big Lie" propaganda technique. I don't think he needs any help with damaging himself. The American people are finding out the GOP was correct that many would lose their healthcare plans they were promised they would be able to keep, and for many their premiums would drastically increase. The problem with telling that egregious of a lie is it eventually comes back to bite you in the ass, as it is now. Pass the popcorn, this is gonna get good.

Steve Snyder (aka WingnutSteve) @26 wrote:

I'd say if 60 Minutes KNOWINGLY reported something false then they should be held accountable.

1. That was not the standard the right wing noise machine applied when they blasted Rather and Mapes over what turned out to be an accurate Bush went AWOL story. To the contrary, their claim, since debunked, was that the documents they thought were true, were, in fact, forgeries.

2. Does that mean that, unlike the self-serving claims made in relation to the Bush AWOL story, you have no problems with what was, at best, journalistic negligence in the failure to independently check out the Dylan Davies account before airing the interview on 60 Minutes?

3. So far, despite a demand from David Brock, CBS has failed to retract its bogus Benghazi story. Doesn't that meet your "knowing" criteria?

" To the contrary, their claim, since debunked, was that the documents they thought were true, were, in fact, forgeries. "

1. Atty. Canning, are the antecedents of "they" and "their" the same?
2. Can you give evidence that the documents were not forgeries?

Steve Snyder (aka WingnutSteve) @26 wrote:

For Ernie @ 19 who is so worried that Davey Crocket is somehow going to damage Obama...

Nice try at spin, Steve. But you, of all people, know full well that this had nothing to do with "defending Obama" and everything to do with Davey Crockett's shameless duplicity.

I know that you, as a long time reader of The BRAD BLOG, know damn well that I have never been shy about criticizing our incumbent President, even calling him out for duplicity, when warranted, e.g We Must be Insane in which I described the President's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as Orwellian.

As they pertained to Davey Crockett (or you for that matter), my comments were by no means intended to shield the President from valid criticism. Instead, they were directed at the incredible lack of intellectual honesty that he, and you, have repeatedly displayed at this site.

Davey Crockett @28 asks:

Can you give evidence that the documents were not forgeries?

I already did. See comment #5 and read the linked Mapes interview. (here and here)

Meanwhile, your comment @24 reflects yet another crafty dodge of Brad's simple and straightforward question. Indeed, in stating "my comments were only directed to" you reinforced the points I made @19.

Oh, Davey, in answer to your other question @28, the context of comment 27, sub-paragraph 1 already provides the answer --- "they" and "their" are pronouns that relate to the adjectives and noun, "right wing noise machine."

Are there any other issues of English 101 that I can assist you with?

"Davies said he was interviewed by a team of U.S. officials from various agencies, including the FBI and the State Department, via a conference call when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, shortly after the attacks. Davies said he also discussed the events in Benghazi with FBI and State Department officials who interviewed him in person Sept. 21 at his home in Wales. These accounts, Davies said, match the ones in his memoir and interview with 60 Minutes."

"Davies said the version of the events contained in the incident report matched what he told his supervisor, called �Robert� in his book, who is a top Blue Mountain Group executive. Davies said he lied to Robert about his actions that night because he did not want his supervisor to know he had disobeyed his orders to stay at his villa."

I'm sorry Brad, but Davies is telling the truth. The State Department, however, has been proven to be lying about Benghazi, and is still covering-up the facts. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit this. I don't see how anyone can defend the State Department and the administration on this one. These guys have been lying through their teeths, on Benghazi and plenty of other issues. Ughhhh.... Hopefully, the American people are starting to get it.

Please provide a link, Neal @32.

Here's what we do know:

The written account Davies submitted to his employer not only contradicts his 60 Minutes claim about being at the embassy but that portion of his claim in which he said he to the Benghazi hospital and saw Ambassador Chris Stevens' body.

Setting aside Davies financial motive (a desire to sell his new book, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There) --- a motive that caused even the ignoble Fox "News" to break off contact with Davies, I wonder if you would be so kind as to answer a couple of questions:

1. Are you aware of any independent evidence that would support Davies' self-serving claim that he had lied to his employer in his written account? Or are we to accept, on face value, Davies claim that he was lying then but telling the truth now?

2. Do you consider it an act of responsible journalism for CBS to present Davies "new" allegations without so much as mentioning, let alone questioning him about, the prior inconsistent written remarks during the broadcast?

All in all, you all seem to miss the point. Benghazi did happen, right? But most of the comments would rather not mention it. Insults and agendas seem to be what's favored here. That does leave a stench in the air. That being said, I agree with Neal but appreciate the tone of inquiry Mr. Canning has injected in his last comment

Yes, Dave @34. "Benghazi did happen." So did the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

So your point is?

Davey Crocket -

It's fun that you think folks should prove a negative (that the docs were not forgeries.) Given that others couldn't prove they were, and that, in any case, the Bush Administration never disputed their contents, well, you keep at it, big guy.

But, far more importantly, thanks for the confirm that you are, indeed, a hack partisan hypocrite. Again. Since you have refused, despite repeated reminders, to call for the investigation of this CBS/Benghazi situation, and what appears to be at least as bad as the forgery you believe the CBS/BushAWOL documents were, it's clear you have neither credibility or standing when it comes to this stuff. Keep hacking, man!

At least your compadre Wingnut Steve has the courage to pretend he has some form of moral standing here. You're not even clever enough to do that. So, thanks anyway.

WingnutSteve said @ 26:

From a right vs. wrong perspective I'd say if 60 Minutes KNOWINGLY reported something false then they should be held accountable. I don't see how this gets turned into a right vs. left argument, I think it should be about right vs. wrong...

I agree. But, I hope you also note that while your friend Davey Crocket is pretending that the docs in the Rather case are known forgeries (they aren't), there has never been any evidence to demonstrate that what happened in that matter was a KNOWING error of any kind.

The bar, in the Rightwing calling for the heads of Rather/Mapes and CBS was never, that they "KNOWINGLY" reported false information, simply that they did (as the RWers believe.)

So, do you believe CBS was wrong to hold Mapes and Rather accountable for that story?

And, similarly, do you believe CBS should investigate this story to determine if it was false or not, and retract and hold reporters/producers accountable if it was? (Whether it was "KNOWINGLY" so, or not?)

Pass the popcorn, this is gonna get good.

As good as that non-existent, Fast&Furious/IRS/Benghazi scandal you promised would "get good" previously?

Oh, well. Good to see from ya, Steve. Got worried about ya for a while. Good to see you're as easily scammed as ever! Confirmation bias does that to a guy, I suppose.

Ernie @ 35. I believe the point is that Benghazi was not a "hoax" as the headline of the piece would lead you to believe.

Benghazi, the event, is not a hoax, Steve.

Benghazi, as a right wing code word for a "scandal" designed to divert public attention from the hard right's unrelenting assault on democracy, is a hoax. The same applies to the other right wing "pretend scandals" --- "Fast & Furious," IRS, ACORN, Shirley Sherrod.

How about checking the hospital report. The guy says he was in the hospital and saw the dead ambassador. When was he admitted to the hospital? What was he treated for? How long was he there? Do the details of these reports coincide with Davies accounts on 60 minutes?
Does Davies have any other medical or psychological issues?
Then again these should have been checked out by 60 Minutes.

Alex @40: Davies does not claim that he, Davies, was admitted to the hospital. He claims he went there, looking for a friend; that, while at the hospital, he saw the dead ambassador.

That CBS account is contradicted by Davies' earlier written account where he claimed that " a Libyan colleague who had been at the hospital came to the villa to show him a cellphone picture of the ambassador’s blackened corpse."

Another intriguing issue arises in that the only individuals with whom Davies claims he shared his security concerns prior to the attack died in the attack, so, absent some documentation within the government's or his employer's records, there is no way to independently verify that what Davies says he said is actually true.

WingnutSteve @ 38 said:

Ernie @ 35. I believe the point is that Benghazi was not a "hoax" as the headline of the piece would lead you to believe.

While Ernie responded accurately to your point (you're really still willing to be hoaxed by these things? Okay.), the 'Benghazi Hoax' quoted in the headline is the name of Brock's book. He's the one who wrote the letter to CBS at the center of this article.

But, other than that, yes, the nonsense you've fallen for is, indeed, a hoax. Again. Someday, after you've been played for all you're worth, you'll start to realize these things. But, take your time, of course.

My point simply was that Dave may be someone who doesn't regularly visit this site. Therefore he may not catch the nuance used in the titles of certain pieces here designed to imply something that is not true. Calling Benghazi a hoax in the title, even though it's within a quotation, gives an implication. Perhaps he is not aware that almost everything which reflects negatively on the President is deemed a hoax by the people at bradblog.com....

Steve Snyder aka WingnutSteve @43 wrote:

. Perhaps he is not aware that almost everything which reflects negatively on the President is deemed a hoax by the people at bradblog.com

Come on Steve. I already called you out for that misrepresentation @29.

If you really must resort to making things up from whole cloth, can't you at least come up with something Brad, I or some other person in comments has not already debunked?

Dissembling is one thing. Repeating the same debunked nonsense may cause some to question your sanity.

WingnutSteve @ 43 said:

My point simply was that Dave may be someone who doesn't regularly visit this site. Therefore he may not catch the nuance used in the titles of certain pieces here designed to imply something that is not true.

Dave has been around for a long time. He's a classic troll. He speaks for a reason, when he speaks, and it has nothing to do with adding anything substantive at all to the conversation. You are, or used to be, different, in that regard.

Calling Benghazi a hoax in the title, even though it's within a quotation, gives an implication.

Perhaps. And, if so, that's fine. Because it is, and always has been, a pretend "scandal", meant only as a pathetic, desperate attempt to try and harm the President. That's fine, in as much as I don't care if the President is harmed or not, in that regard. But, it's stupid. Because it's dishonest, doesn't work, and allows the President to get away with all kinds of shit that, if he had a legitimate opposition, he would likely and should be damaged by.

Perhaps he is not aware that almost everything which reflects negatively on the President is deemed a hoax by the people at bradblog.com....

And that, of course, is just silly. If it were Davey, I wouldn't much care, because that's the sort of ignorance he's quite proud of. But, for you to say that, it either belies your dishonesty, your ignorance, or your lack of paying attention here even in the slightest. And, truthfully, I don't think you're necessarily ignorant and I do think you pay attention (to some degree). Which makes statements like that even more vexing.

We deem things "hoaxes" here that are hoaxes. Pretend "scandals" like Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS, etc. On the other hand, we are very critical of those things which actually do reflect negatively on the President: Horrific negotating skills; rolling over for corporations and bankers; corporate appointees; failures and cowardice on climate issues; drones; unwarranted, unconstitutional, illegal spying; secret TPP negotiations; lousy healthcare reform; failures to bring accountability for corporate crimes and voting crimes; failures to bring accountability for Bush administration torture, outing spies, lying about war; failing to take action on electoral reform and e-voting issues...I could go on and on, but one would think you might have noticed these things here over the years.

Instead, you inaccurately and foolishly say: "almost everything which reflects negatively on the President is deemed a hoax by the people at bradblog.com" You're welcome to say such things, if you like, as Davey is welcome to troll away with the same kind of nonsense, and fail to even have the courage to answer a direct question asked to him multiple times. But the fact that you would say something so patently and easily disprovable and stupid, and pretend to believe it, severely limits the possible explanations for why someone like you would make such a charge.

And, perhaps, that means I gave you too much credit all along. That's a pity. And an embarrassment. For both of us.

Amen, brothers.

Brad @ #45:

This is why I continue to donate to this blog! If you didn't get the one I sent a couple of days ago, please let me know.

It's weird because I got a call from my bank, asking if I really wanted to donate. I keep having problems, trying to donate.

It's not like I'm donating to Wikileaks, is it?

I'll give you that you occasionally mention some of those things you take issue with. Usually in response to me to somehow prove that you are fiercely independent as you like to claim. But a quick search of your site shows a mention of Obama's drone policy in March of this year giving kudos to huffpo. TPP? One mention and that was kudos to Grayson. Environment? Yeah, that's spread out on your green news report pretty well so I have to take my hat off to you there. But just as you were suitably outraged about the AP wiretapping mess to the point you spent most of your time back then trying to make the case that the IRS scandal was (is) fake, your claims in your comment are as empty as the lack of words on your site to support them.

My bad, several mentions months ago about TPP. And I haven't spent any time here in months so I'm basing my comment on your search engine results. But, if all these things so outrage you where's the stories about them? I suspect the answer will be similar to the one you gave me when I asked you why you only do pieces about GOP voter fraud issues but never about Democrats. That answer was the Democrat instances didn't interest you. That's in the thread about the second Newt Gingrich supporter being convicted of fraud I do believe.

Steve Snyder aka WingNutSteve's effort at @48 & 49 to try to establish that which is blatantly not the case by an erroneous count of the number of articles at this site that have criticized our incumbent President is truly pathetic.

Giving himself far too much credit, Steve suggests that such articles were usually written in response to his ceaseless failed efforts to challenge Brad's assertion of "fierce independence."

Odd, Steve, but I really don't remember so much as thinking about you or your tired tirades when, way back on April 22, 2009. in Fixing the Facts and Legal Opinions Around the Torture Policy, I joined with Prof. Jonathan Turley in blasting Obama's effort to equate law enforcement with "retribution" when it came to the failure of both Obama and Eric Holder to investigate their predecessors for war crimes.

I don't recall so much as thinking about WingNutSteve when, on Sept. 9, 2009, I wrote ObamaCare: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription, or on August 6, 2010 when I authored Plumbing the Depths of Lawless Executive Depravity in which I penned: "the Obama administration has moved beyond the Bush/Cheney cabal's assertion of unchecked Executive lawlessness in the form of extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention and torture" because of their worldwide program of targeting perceived enemies, including U.S. citizens, for assassination without any right of due process of law.

It is truly sad that Steve and Davey Crockett are so blinded by the right that they can't appreciate that real journalism entails leveling criticism only where it is warranted. When it comes to what they perceive as their enemy--all Democrats--they expect blind acceptance of any and all GOP criticism, facts be damned.

They are incapable of distinguishing valid criticism from these GOP-generated, self-serving, faux "scandals" like Benghazi, the IRS, ACORN, Shirley Sherrod.