The New York Times is having a “cannot prove,” CBS-like moment.

Power Line:

What the [Swift Boat] Vets said was true. Kerry didn’t meet with “both sides,” as the Times has now admitted; he met with both of the two Communist delegations. The Times misinformed its readers in order to defuse the impact of the Vets’ ad and to promote Kerry’s candidacy.

Imagine that. By the way, guess who owns our local CBS affiliate.

Or something.

Maybe the extra juice will help Kerry overcome August and September.

Hope is on the way. Or something.

About.com military expert Rod Powers responds to innuendo by Democrats, including Johns Kerry and Edwards, about a possible draft under President Bush, saying, “Here we go again…”

I found this passage particularly instructive:

One of the programs that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has expounded on, indicating that (under a Bush presidency) a draft is necessary, is the use of “Stop Loss.” When “Stop Loss” is in effect, members of the military are not allowed to separate or retire, during the period of the “Stop Loss.” “They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft,” Kerry said.

I’ve got news for the good senator — Stop Loss has been going on now for 14 years. It was first widely used by President Bush (senior) during the first Gulf War. Stop Loss was extensively implemented by President Clinton for both Bosnia and Kosovo. Bush (junior) implemented it for Afghanistan and Iraq. The “Stop Loss” in effect today is the minimum ever implemented. It affects a soldier only if he or she has been notified of an upcoming deployment. In other words, if a soldier is told he/she is scheduled to deploy, then he/she cannot separate or retire until after the deployment is complete.

Read the whole thing. Earlier draft-related stuff here.

I’ve long held that anything you hear from the media is true at 180 degrees. For example, George W. Bush was never AWOL from the national guard, and despite the Democrat/Media lie that he betrayed his country by not serving in Vietnam, Bush in fact volunteered for duty there. I’m sure Dan Rather will be the first to break that story (guffaw, guffaw), and that a John Kerry apology is forthcoming…

From an updated post below: CBS “announced that [Dan] Rather would anchor the network’s coverage of all three presidential debates, starting Sept. 30.”

I don’t think CBS understands how seriously Rather’s credibility has been damaged.

Yet another example of biased AP headline scrubbing. Previous episode below.

Meanwhile, David Brooks unleashes a unilateral attack on the useless multilateralists and UN do-nothings. Don’t miss it.

Also, another insightful Impromptus; gotta love the scattershot.

It’s been awhile since we checked in with some of our liberal adversaries, the ones Michael Moore cited as authorities on “propaganda,” at counterbias.com:

A question left unanswered is: why did CBS run with this story? I don’t know if this counts as liberal bias or not, but had the documents been proven genuine, they might have tarnished George W. Bush’s credibility. Instead, CBS is eating crow and worse still, conservatives are now blaming the Kerry campaign for creating the documents.

Come now, counter-bias crew… how can you counter a bias you refuse to recognize? How can you be “Fighting the Biased Media Machine…” if you are blind to it?

By the way, guys, if you read this - make sure you let Mr. Krug know he’s always welcome to return to our debate from which he prematurely bailed.

Insty notes AP headline scrubbing. Earlier draft-fear hijinks here and here.

Reader Robi Sen notes “the story CBS almost ran,” a beautiful crossroads of forged memos, Joe Wilson, and WMD intel. Robi links to this MSNBC column by frothy liberals Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, which begins:

In its rush to air its now discredited story about President George W. Bush’s National Guard service, CBS bumped another sensitive piece slated for the same “60 Minutes” broadcast: a half-hour segment about how the U.S. government was snookered by forged documents purporting to show Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

Heh!

MORE: Robert Musil has the details.

MORE: AP - CBS Nixes ‘60 Minutes’ Story on Iraq War

CBS News has shelved a “60 Minutes” report on the rationale for war in Iraq because it would be “inappropriate” to air it so close to the presidential election, the network said on Saturday.

The report on weapons of mass destruction was set to air on Sept. 8 but was put off in favor of a story on President Bush’s National Guard service. The Guard story was discredited because it relied on documents impugning Bush’s service that were apparently fake.

CBS News spokeswoman Kelli Edwards would not elaborate on why the timing of the Iraq report was considered inappropriate.

Perhaps because the story is a criticism of the government’s supposed use of forged documents, a topic on which CBS has no credibility?

The network last week appointed former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press chief executive Louis Boccardi to investigate what went wrong with the National Guard report and recommend changes.

The controversy has put CBS News officials squarely on the fire line, particularly anchor Dan Rather, who narrated the National Guard report.

Meanwhile, the network announced that Rather would anchor the network’s coverage of all three presidential debates, starting Sept. 30.

Obviously, CBS has not learned its lesson.

Other bloggers have connected the following Dan Rather quotes several times in the last few days, but one word jumps out at me…

Dan Rather, Sept 10, 2004: “The ‘60 Minutes’ report was based not solely on the recovered documents but on a preponderance of evidence including documents that were provided by un-impeachable sources and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard.”

Now CBS says it’s un-impeachable source was Bill Burkett, who has since admitted that he was lying about the documents aired by Rather on 60 Minutes.

Dan Rather, May 15, 2001: “I think [Bill Clinton]’s an honest man… I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things”

This, after Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice.

Making the comparison even more relevant is the fact that the impeached President Clinton’s main advocate at the time was Joe Lockhart, who currently works for John Kerry and admits to having discussed strategy with the impeached Bill Burkett.

Lockhart says, “I did not talk to Burkett about any documents or even the National Guard story,” and that the conversation was limited to a discussion of the Swiftboat ads and Vietnam.

Do these people really think we’re that stupid? Lockhart talked to Burkett, the source of the guard memo story, only a few days before it aired (i.e. when it was being produced), and that conversation was set up by CBS News producer Mary Mapes, who was working with Rather on the guard story.

Lockhart talked to both Mapes and Burkett and yet wasn’t aware or involved in CBS’s slanderous attack on the President’s guard service?

You know, some might call Lockhart’s story unimpeachable… but we all know what that means.