Well, OK, Power Line must be given its due :) Especially on this post:
The other thing I'd really like to know, though, is why CBS moved the 60 Minutes program up from the end of September to September 8. The Thornburgh report talks about this change, and blames it for the fact that the show was put together in too much of a hurry.Now you know to go to that post for sure but I also recommend scrolling up and down!
But why? Someone made the decision to move the program up; the report doesn't tell us who. I'll give you a hypothesis as to why it happened: the Kerry campaign was dying because of the Swift Boat Vets' attacks, and CBS was desperate--with or without explicit communication with the DNC and the Kerry campaign--to do something to stem the tide. To "change the momentum of an election," as Michael Smith emailed to Mary Mapes.
If that hypothesis isn't right, can someone give us another one?
Well, OK, Dr. Simon has a take on the Grey NYeT perspective.
But so far, no evidence has emerged that the Thornburg/Bocardi panel has even seriously studied the pre-eminent technical analysis of the C-BS manure. There is exactly ONE reference to Dr. Newcomer's analysis in the report -- apparently via quoting of the Washington Post. While at least the Post reference to Newcomer's analysis is positive, considering this a sufficient technical treatment is far beyond risible. We will need to invent an entirely new word in fact.
Well, OK, we already have one that will do for semi-polite conversation where everyone clearly needs to be informed of the situation without quite saying what we REALLY think: HOGWASH!
The report doesn't come out and say that the documents are irrefutably technical forgeries. That would be because they have simply not seriously gone out the find the pre-eminent technical analysis available by an actual technical expert.
Dr. Newcomer's work is entirely sufficient to unequivocally prove forgery. And if they had any question about that they would have convened a technical panel that consisted of academic and industry experts -- Dr. Newcomer's PhD places him in both camps -- and subjected his analysis to a rigorous review. I would be quite impressed if they could find ANY SUBSTANTIVE ERROR in his analysis.
I think there are two primary possibilities why Thornburg/Bocardi didn't do this: 1) They had a pre-determined outcome they were shooting for based on political horse trading or 2) they are simply incompetent regarding how to analyze anthing technical. (Scientific method? Refereed papers? Techical panels? What's that stuff?)
It's hard to tell at this junction but I'm starting to lean toward BOTH as the answer.
This leads me to some additional thoughts on the role and future of the blogosphere in bringing sorely needed expertise to bear in the public square -- but I'm out of time for tonight.
Did I mention I have a Master's in Computer Science and if you read my resume you'd realize that I have more than a little credibility to bring to this as a technical problem? When you're spitting up blood do you just shrug and say it's too complicated to understand and it's not provable you're sick? Or do you call a doctor?
CBS hasn't called the doctor -- because they don't want to know they're sick.
The value of the blogosphere is that the "ill" get the "housecalls" they need even if they try to lock the door and strap on their tinfoil hats. And no matter what "estate" they live on...
Read this as a warm-up for future posts on this subject.
By the way, Charles has been under DDOS attack but has some things to say on Discarded Lies in the mean time. And his voice deserves to be heard over the nutjobs.
And yes, this is a signature topic on this blog.
And it ain't going away as long as the hogs are squealing...
Posts
