September 15, 2004

So I'm a Bastard, Eh Juan?

On Fox News, Juan Williams just said (paraphrasing), "the difference between Big Media and Interent sites is that Big Media has their credibility at stake." Instead of Big Media, Juan listed four or five Big Media vendors. Otherwise the statement is correct. I'd give you the exact statement, but I can't type that fast. And, yes, I intentionally used the word vendors. This seems to be a frequently forgotten fact when it comes to Big Media, but one which we bloggers who still live in a free market never forget. We have to sell what we write, but the currency is readership rather than cash (for most of us anyway). If any of us are whacked out and unreliable, we're going to lose in the free marketplace of ideas.

Mr. Williams is also still trying to push the "issues raised" by the memos meme being what's really important. And, oh yeah, if the memos are fake, then CBS must answer for them. This is sad.

Now CBS has released its take using a little old lady on 60 Minutes tonight, (surely this will be just between us, right?) and it is saying that the memos may be fake but the contents are valid. Can you imagine trying this in a court of law, which is sometimes less strict than the court of opinion? Unbelieveable, unless you're Juan Williams, I guess.

"The President still hasn't said he took the physical." -- You go Mr. Williams. Just go.

Posted by Charles Austin at September 15, 2004 06:56 PM

It appears that what is being alleged has to do with Bush not wanting to be subjected to drug testing, although nobody says this outright.
Do you know when drug testing began in the Air Force?
I've been trying to find this, unsuccessful, so far. The time appears to be 1981. A little late for Bush I would think but I cannot confirm this.
All the references that drug testing began earlier refer to information from one person and in relation to Bush. Eric Beinhart is the name.
Do you know a way to get this info?

Posted by: carol ramm at 07:23 PM

What is particularly frightening is that so many in the MSM don't seem to see that if the documents are forgeries, they can say anything the forgers want them to say. They can say that Bush is a large green turnip if they want. They can say anything. Why should anyone respond to accusations based on forgeries?

The forgeries have no valid 'content'. At all. Why can't they see this?

Posted by: jack at 10:47 AM