Dan Rather, Apologist

[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]

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

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?

[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