Dan Rather's Colleagues Must Be Part Of The Conspiracy
Dan Rather's lawsuit at CBS achieved its first purpose; it's put Dan Rather back in the spotlight. After having disappeared into the black hole of HDNet, Rather once again has become noteworthy enough to get an invitation on Larry King Live and the rest of the talkshows. However, if he had hoped to resurrect his reputation with the lawsuit, his colleagues have not been impressed (via QandO):
Rather’s former colleagues at CBS have something to say.Take, for example, Don Hewitt, the legendary producer of “60 Minutes.” “Any news organization, print or broadcast, has the right to protect its reputation by divesting itself of a reporter, irrespective of who he or she is, who it feels reported as fact something that reflected his or her biases more than the facts bear,” he said in a NEWSWEEK interview. “And if the reporter’s defense is that he or she had been ‘had,’ isn’t he or she someone a news organization worth its salt can no longer trust not to be ‘had’ again.”
This point can't get enough emphasis, because it shows Rather's hypocrisy in claiming himself as a victim. Josh Howard, the executive producer that had to resign in the wake of the Memogate debacle, insisted that Rather had intimate involvement in the story, arguing over "every line" in the script. Rather, in his lawsuit, insists that all he did was read what was put in front of him not once but twice, the second time for his "deeply" personal apology. In both cases, Rather claims now to have been fooled into acquiescence, despite his career-long insistence that he remained first and foremost a reporter even as news anchor.
If he's that much of a patsy, why would CBS keep him around?
Hewitt says he had questioned whether the reporting was biased at a CBS meeting convened to discuss the controversy that began to swell after the story aired. “Let me ask one question,” he recalls addressing the gathering. “If this had been John Kerry, wouldn’t you have been more careful about the story?”
If it had been John Kerry, the story wouldn't have ran. Mary Mapes had been pushing this story for six years, and even a modicum of research would have shown that the basis of the story was false. Mapes insisted that Bush got into the Texas Air National Guard through favoritism because the Guard had long waiting lists during the period of the draft. However, CNN had already proven that the TexANG had no such waiting lists for those committing to be pilots (which had a longer commitment), and in fact were actively recruiting to fill the empty slots.
The CBS report authored by Mapes and Rather never included that information, even though it had been public knowledge since at least 1999.
A senior CBS News insider said Rather is further damaging his reputation by suing. “I think it looks pathetic,” this executive told NEWSWEEK on condition of not being identified. "It looks like the musing of an older man who can’t let go. This will have no winners. But the biggest loser will be Dan.”And another former colleague questioned Rather’s motives, declaring that the former anchor is seeking to raise his profile in his post-CBS career at HDNet, a cable channel controlled by billionaire Mark Cuban. “Had he been a big success in his new life” at HDNet, this person speculated, “I don’t believe this would have happened. How do I get myself back into the news? Sue CBS, of course. All of a sudden, people are now talking about Dan Rather again.”
That's the reason why Rather has gone on this embarrassing, paranoid valedictory tour. He can't stand not having the spotlight. He also can't admit his own fault in his downfall, and so the only explanation that he can accept is that Les Moonves, Sumner Redstone, Josh Howard, and Don Hewitt of all people are actors in a vast, Bush-based conspiracy to discredit him.
Unfortunately, Dan does that well enough on his own, and even his colleagues have to admit it.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on September 22, 2007 12:13 PM | Comments (62) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (62)
Posted by RBMN | September 22, 2007 12:47 PM
Dan, Come back with "Lucy Ramirez," in person, holding authentic original 1970s TANG memos signed by Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian. Memos that can pass a professional forensic document examination. Until then, you're a big fraud. Get lost.
Posted by Bennett | September 22, 2007 12:52 PM
I've thought about this for the last few days and I'm not so sure this is just about getting back at CBS. I think this is one last desperate lunge at getting George W. Bush, that Rather is hoping (insanely but still hoping) that out of this there will be some vindication that the Texas Air NG story IS true. And if he can't accomplish that he hopes to show that the Bush White House bigfooted CBS into hanging him out to dry.
If it weren't so laughable, it'd be almost Shakespearean, Dan Rather as Othello or King Lear or Macbeth (presumably with Mary Mapes as Lady Macbeth).
Posted by Carol Herman | September 22, 2007 1:05 PM
What a strange turning of the tables. Gunda Dan is in even worse paranoid shape than Nixon. Unceremoniously tossed off the Black Rock.
All that was missing from the Larry King "gab fest," was Gunga Dan holding both hands above his head, giving Nixonh's departure "salute." Which was, of all things, "courage." The "V" for victory.
I guess Gunga Dan's not thru, until he does that jesture?
Meanwhile, a plague on both their houses. I have no sympathy for C-BS. The "suits" ruined Paley's House's reputation by NOT tossing Dan Rather out on his ears, one day after the "shit hit the fan," and both Buckhead (at Free Republic); and Charles Johnson, with his graphic overlay of the faked memo; available for all to see. TYPED ON A COMPUTER that wasn't "invented" during the 1970's. The last decade of the famous IBM Selectrics. Balls and all.
IBM's Watson didn't guess right, either.
And, Xerox? Didn't they suffer shame when what was invented in their lab, and the "suits" thought of as a joke; made it out for all to see; when the earliest versions of "computers" were sold at Radio Shack?
Some people, who pass through, seem unaware of how these lessons end up as our history.
Ya know? I can't wait for VIKING O1, to come on board and comment. He knows this history! He saw the "mainstream" media collapsing into the swamp.
Posted by daveinboca | September 22, 2007 1:27 PM
Here's a Gunga Dan story that shows the man's true character [or lack thereof].
When I was in the TV game, a roadie for Rather who accompanied him to Pakistan in 1981 for his breathless reporting from inside Afghanistan.
Only problem was, they never got near Afghanistan, according to this young guy who told me that Rather [and CBS] had hired a Paki movie crew, went to the hills outside Peshawar, and simulated gunfire & explosions while Dan courageously posed as an intrepid newsman.
All faked, just like Dan whose transparent phoniness brought the Tiffany network's news operation into third place as permanent bottom-dweller in the TV evening news ratings race.
I have another lubricious anecdote from an ABC employee that I'll refrain from repeating, but it is another example of the reason for the punchout-scuffle on Fifth Avenue & "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"
Rather pathetic is a nice way to describe this gutless spineless impostor.
Rather is a compleat fraud and a delusional narcissist.
Posted by Corky Boyd | September 22, 2007 1:36 PM
As pathetic as this sounds, I think Dan is hoping to get his old job back. Of course this won't happen.
He is in absolute denial of the falsity of his story and damage he did to CBS. He sees himself as the white knight who can rescue the CBS News Division from the doldrums.
Such delusion!
Posted by Only One Cannoli | September 22, 2007 1:43 PM
Rather would be perfect in the role of Captain Queeg.
"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic.... "
Posted by onlineanalyst | September 22, 2007 2:17 PM
Word has it that Gunga Dan was frosted that he could not be your man on the scene, intrepid adventurer's vest and all, to report the Katrina story. He "coulda been a contendah" in taking swipes at the Bush Administration. Little did he realize that the Lamestream Media was taking its best shot without his being in the "chocolate city with its 10,000 bloated corpses"; the media ignored those unused school buses as well as he would have.
Posted by Terry Gain | September 22, 2007 2:43 PM
Yesterday I received an unmarked brown envelope (these envelopes are always brown). It contained the following message.
" Mary and I know it was wrong to try to frame Bush but we don't know how to stop the bleeding".
The note is unsigned however I've consulted four forensic psychologists and they all agree that the note looks like it was written by Dan (or Mary).
The note is in French. Neither Dan or Mary speak or write French. We think this is a diversion or evidence of a carefully conceived plot. Or consciousness of guilt.
We called the FBI but they said we had the wrong number. We then called CBS. We expect them to stop by soon. Stay tuned.
Posted by Levans | September 22, 2007 2:46 PM
Mark Cuban and Dan Rather! Two gigantic egos; two huge thirsts for the spotlight; two unhinged hatreds for GWB. Maybe this is more a promotional gambit than a serious legal pursuit.
Posted by sherlock | September 22, 2007 2:55 PM
“If this had been John Kerry, wouldn’t you have been more careful about the story?”
Oh yes, they damn well would have been more careful... they would have been "careful" to bury all traces of it and never allow any mention of it to see the light of day!
Look, here is CBS running an anti-Bush story based on documents that are almost comically fake, from a source that asks them for help in contacting the Kerry campaign, at the same time they are totally avoiding any mention of the fact that Kerry's military records are not public, despite the fact that he himself has made his war record the centerpiece of his campaign! What does it take to get someone to call "foul"!?
Bottom line: CBS was willing to air slander as damning evidence about Bush, and at the same time embargo damning evidence about Kerry as if it was slander.
CBS is lucky that Rather made such an ass of himself that they could easily make him the scapegoat. By all rights they should have fired everyone in their news division above the level of janitor!
The fact that CBS has been able to position itself as the party that acted responsibly in this is hilarious - it just demonstrates how utterly broken the ethics of the media really are, and why their enormous power is a danger to our society.
Posted by Terry Gain | September 22, 2007 3:05 PM
sherlock
It doesn't appear that Teresa is available at the moment so on her behalf may I ask: "If everything you say is true why isn't this public knowledge? If I were you I'd check out my facts before slandering the good name of these fine and reputable people".
Posted by unclesmrgol | September 22, 2007 3:05 PM
Corky,
You don't sue the employer if you want to get a job.
Unless the employer is the government.
Posted by Angry Dumbo | September 22, 2007 4:19 PM
CBS don't settle. A trial would be such great theatre. OJ is going to take a plea, so a trial is just what your sagging ratings need. Think of it this way, Rather make Katie look like a respectable journalist. : ))
Posted by docjim505 | September 22, 2007 4:35 PM
Bennett's theory that Comrade Dan just wants one last swipe at Bush makes some sense, but I think that the truth is that ol' Dan has gone 'round the bend: he is insane. Perhaps not barking at the moon / thinking he's Napoleon loony, but crazy nevertheless.
Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | September 22, 2007 5:28 PM
In the fight between Dan Rather and CBS, is there any way for both sides to lose? Or at least look even worse than they do already (if that is possible)?
Posted by Elle | September 22, 2007 5:29 PM
Rather's pathetic behavior designed to attract atention to himself is mightily reminiscent of that other fallen star, Britney Spears. Should we expect him to make the rounds of Leno and Letterman in spangled hot pants and bra?
His colleagues are wondering why he would do something that appears to be so foolish. Maybe he should be randomly drug tested.
Posted by sherlock | September 22, 2007 5:42 PM
"If everything you say is true why isn't this public knowledge? If I were you I'd check out my facts before slandering the good name of these fine and reputable people".
These facts ARE public knowledge, Terry. As to why you are not aware of them, I can only speculate that perhaps it is because you get you news from fine and reputable people like Dan Rather.
And if you would care to actually cite an assertion I made that you believe is incorrect, instead of lecturing me about what I do and do not know, or can and cannot say on this blog, just fire away, okay?
Posted by Harry | September 22, 2007 5:58 PM
I mean who the heck doesDan think he is:
Our President...the war hero...who fought in no wars....oh yeah
Our President...the cowboy....who went to Yale and really isn't a real cowboy because he's afraid of horses....oh yeah
Our President....who is for the drug war...unless of course the blow was going up his own nose.
Isn't it great that Dan's a liar.
Posted by Andrew X | September 22, 2007 6:15 PM
If anyone wants the column equivalent of a hot fudge sundae, check out Jonah Goldberg....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2NkOWI4ZWYzMzliMTMxZmFhZjMxOTg2MmYzYWJhMjI=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDJlOWNmZDEwYmJiOGI0MmMyYjY4NTc5MWM4YTJlMTE=
Meanwhile, I was pondering. Imagine if the Swiftboats or the like had presented such memos to CBS about Kerry. We all agree there's no way it woulda got on the air, but that's only half of it.
Tell me CBS wouldn’t immediately make a HUGE story about the attempt by Bush partisans to pass off forged memos (gasp), and shoddy ones at that (!) in the heat of a campaign. And what’s this?? A high level member of the group CALLED the Bush campaign to inform them about when and where they were using the memos (!!!)
Can you say “firestorm”? Can you say “President Kerry”. It would have been a monster story, and the exact same sort of memos would have CBS News laughing their rear ends off at the stupidity of those shilling them.
Goldberg is right. This story is so damn delicious because Rather and his supporters are SO oblivious to how much this validates so much of what we have all been saying for decades. Wonderful stuff.
Posted by Elle | September 22, 2007 6:15 PM
Harry,
The matter here at issue is not George Bush, however flawed he may or may not be. The issue is Dan Rather and his proclamations concerning his own honesty and the truth of the original story. Proclamations which simply do not hold up on either count.
People can blast George Bush but it does absolutely nothing to restore Rather's lost honor if,indeed,it ever existed.
Posted by Terry Gain | September 22, 2007 6:16 PM
Sherlock
Your fact filled 2:55PM post was great; mine immediately below it, perhaps less so. I was being sarcastic and thought pretending to speak for our new resident troll, Teresa, would make that clear.
I often use humour to make a point. I intended to offer you high praise. I agree with every word of your previous comment. Friends again?
Terry
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | September 22, 2007 6:42 PM
Thank you, Andrew X, for the links. Reading Goldberg's commentary that leads up to this:
Funniest thing I'll read this week.
Posted by Harry | September 22, 2007 7:01 PM
"Harry,
The matter here at issue is not George Bush, however flawed he may or may not be."
Oh but it is. Numerous people have validated the contents of the memo, the fake but accurate thing stands unchallenged. Concentrating on fonts, typeface, word, typewriters...lessens the truth behind the memo's.
You see all that ever remains is that the docs were fake...the evidence in them had never been successfully challenged and that's Dan's point (however badly made).
In fact, according to the secretary who typed the memo's, they contained nothing but fact.
But then again what would someone who was there at the time know?
It's a shiny object....look over here not at the facts.
Then again at this point it really doesn't matter. With the hole Bush has dug getting nothing but deeper, there is little that can redeem him.
The fact that the man is a coward, a liar, a myth with no susbstance, a privilaged brat who has no concept of anyone but himself....well there aint much more Dan can do that 70+% of the public already think
Now watch me make this drive.
Posted by sherlock | September 22, 2007 7:16 PM
Terry, sorry I did not detect the sarcasm - my apologies for accidently letting you have it with both barrels - but just consider it a response to the the "fake but accurate" version of the comment our mutual friend would no doubt have made anyway, right?
BTW that attitude of "If it was true that journalists are biased, I would have read about it in the news" is one that I have to endure from some in my own family, so it is a real red flag to me! I am sometimes reduced nearly to tears by the jaw-dropping stupidity of statements like that.
Posted by sherlock | September 22, 2007 7:26 PM
Should we expect him to make the rounds of Leno and Letterman in spangled hot pants and bra?
Elle, I hope for your sake there is no special place in Hell for people who infect our minds with images like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was! Please don't ever, ever, do that again! Now I have to flush my brain out with scotch!
Oh, wait...
Posted by Terry Gain | September 22, 2007 7:31 PM
Sherlock
Sometimes the only way to deal with mindless comments like the one you italicize is with derision. Commenters like Teresa here (and april at Powerline) specialize in offering mindless comments. And both of them try to dominate a thread with one inane comment after another. I just wish they would go back to Kos' harem and leave us decent folk alone.
Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | September 22, 2007 7:48 PM
Numerous people have validated the contents of the memo, the fake but accurate thing stands unchallenged. Concentrating on fonts, typeface, word, typewriters...lessens the truth behind the memo's.
I see Dan, er, "Harry" has been in the Kool-Aid again. How dare we concentrate on the evidence! Don’t we know that there is a Truth that is at stake here? The memos are accurate except for the fact that they were forged – an unimportant detail. Behind the solid wall of lies told by Dan and CBS is the Truth - a Truth that shines as brightly as Harry's empty Kool-Aid cups.
In fact, according to the secretary who typed the memo's, they contained nothing but fact.
What happened to all of those "numerous" people? Looks like you whiffed on that drive of yours.
Consider yourself appropriately smacked down. By the evidence, of course. When you come up with the real documents (or at least better fakes than CBS cooked up), then call me.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 22, 2007 7:51 PM
Harry said:
"Numerous people have validated the contents of the memo, the fake but accurate thing stands unchallenged."
Credible cites, please? Key word: CREDIBLE. Who ARE all of these "numerous people"? You don't identify any of them by name, so why should we believe your nonsense?
"Then again at this point it really doesn't matter. With the hole Bush has dug getting nothing but deeper, there is little that can redeem him."
LOL! What does he need "redeeming" for? You sound like evangelist Rex Humbard, who died today. Your standard leftist talking points are like Rex DOA.
Look, Bush isn't running any more. The problem is that you brainwashed high school students can't figure that out.
By the way, you ARE trying to deflect the topic of the thread, which is Rather's lawsuit. And the purpose of his lawsuit is not to prove what Bush did or didn't do 30 years ago, but what CBS did to Dan, just a couple of years ago.
One more thing-I'm just curious-who are you going to call "AWOL Chimpy" in 2009?
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 22, 2007 7:54 PM
Terry Gain said:
"Commenters like Teresa here (and april at Powerline) specialize in offering mindless comments."
Ayone ever seen those two people in the same room at the same time? I wouldn't be surprised if they are one and the same.
Posted by Harry | September 22, 2007 7:57 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-14-memos-forgeries_x.htm
You see there you go again. Concentrate on the memo not the facts contained.
Marian Carr Knox was there, were you...nope was Dan...nope but she say's that what the memo contains is pretty much true.
Why do I need documents when alls I got is a person who was there.
LOL. If it were not so sad it would be funny.
The guy is a liar, a coward, a drug addicted alcoholic with mother issues and I need facts.
There all pretty much out there with a google search.
Wierd thing is is that I don't see anyone who was "there" out to defend the guy.
Pretty sad.
Posted by doc | September 22, 2007 8:06 PM
If it had been John Kerry, the story wouldn't have ran.
Nitpicking: grammar!
Posted by Bennett | September 22, 2007 8:13 PM
"Numerous people have validated the contents of the memo, the fake but accurate thing stands unchallenged."
Uh, Harry, I don't think so. CBS needed the memos because not one person had any personal recollection or any evidence of anything other than a belief or an opinion that even if the memos were phony, the contents themselves might or could be true.
CBS used the memos to prove that the contents were true and accurate. Without the memos the story was nothing more than recycled gossip and unsubstantiated opinions. Such evidence doesn't hold up in a court of law, it doesn't hold up in the court of public opinion and it should never have made it onto 60 Minutes.
To say otherwise, is to accept the validity of the forged Howard Hughes will or the phony Hitler diaries or the legitimacy of a fake Vermeer or a knock off Gucci handbag. Something is either real or it isn't. 60 Minutes didn't start the program off with a disclaimer, "this is a reenactment" or "certain events have been dramatised". They offered it all up as truth, both the memos AND their contents. If they didn't need the memos to prove the accuracy of what the memos said, they would never have put them on the air in the first place.
Posted by docjim505 | September 22, 2007 8:57 PM
Bennett,
Please excuse me for butting in, but why in the world are you debating with a person who wrote:
The guy is a liar, a coward, a drug addicted alcoholic with mother issues and I need facts.
I smell a Troofer of the most virulent stripe; why waste your time acknowledging this bitter, hateful troll? As the old saying goes, "What have you done when you've bested a fool?"
Oh, well... Have fun!
Posted by Bennett | September 22, 2007 9:29 PM
"why waste your time acknowledging this bitter, hateful troll?"
Yeah, I know it's a classic lefty hit 'n run, troll by and drop a turd in the punch bowl and then beat feet out of Dodge (I'm probably mixing metaphors or something there).
But I subscribe to the theory that all lies, slander or deception must be challenged in some way, at least once. If they aren't, they can become accepted as fact by others. And usually when you challenge a lie, the person either starts mindlessly repeating the same twisted story or resorts to a diatribe. Then I don't have to do anything else, his own behavior convicts him.
And I have a particular distaste for the "fake but accurate" defense. I really can't let it go by.
Posted by Paul Milenkovic | September 22, 2007 9:31 PM
I think the claim that a forged document becomes authentic when one cannot refute every last element of some supposed underlying truth ties into the Beauchamp story at the New Republic.
The facts that Beauchamp claimed all started to unravel apart from the bits about Beauchamp acting badly, but that people are even attempting to refute Beauchamp is taken as further proof that there is some underlying truth to the story, that war is Hell and that it takes its psychological toll on its combatants, as if this wasn't general known, and the powers that be are trying to cover this up.
The part that makes me sad is that we are going down the road of Hugo Chavez' Venezuala, where the only news is the propaganda of a political faction that shouts loudest, and any critique of that "news" puts you in the company of the right wing-reactionary-capitalist roader-corporate toady-Bush loving cabal.
Posted by docjim505 | September 22, 2007 9:33 PM
Bennett,
Good point. Fire away, Gridley.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 22, 2007 9:39 PM
From Harry's URL about the "secretary":
"She declined to be interviewed late Tuesday, but her son, Pat Carr, confirmed her comments."
OK, you're right. The person making the accusations refuses to be interviewed, but sends her SON out to say that what she said was the truth.
That's like John Edwards and Barry Hussein Obama sending their spouses out to attack Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Got any better material? Maybe you can have Paul Begala fax you some new ideas.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 22, 2007 9:45 PM
PS, Harry-I can give you a link to a story from USA Today that reports that a Federal Judge appointed by Bill Clinton ruled that Iraq in fact was a participant in the 9/11 attacks.
Will you accept this USA Today story as "fact" as readily as you accept their story about some secretary no one has ever heard of?
No, I didn't think so, but here's the link anyway.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm
Posted by Neo | September 22, 2007 9:49 PM
Dan is merely trying to follow in the footsteps of Don Imus, who got a big contract settlement. Problem for Dan is that Don was supposed to be contraversal, Dan was supposed to do "news".
Posted by Carol Herman | September 22, 2007 9:59 PM
Ah, what Dan Rather actually proves is that the elites are CANNIBALS!
That's why this seems so surprising. He got paid well. He got further along, by Murphy's Law rules, than other anchors.
He sat in his chair, at the end, for years, in 3rd place. Yet bringing down millions in salary dollars.
he was allowed to keep the paranoid, psychotic, Mary Mapes as his "door keeper." Only letting in to his "star" chambers, what he wanted to hear.
And, then?
C-BS goes so delicatly on Dan, that he's given a two year exit arrangement. WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED ON THE SPOT!
BELDAR has up a great post!
He says as soon as Buckhead, and Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, PROVED the documents were written on a computer. Meaning NOT in the early 1970's. But written, yet, by amatuers, who couldn't figure out how to "fake back" to the old Courier type. Couldn't over-ride Microsoft's "spacings."
Couldn't provide an ON CAMERA Lucy Ramirez ANYWHERE IN THIS WORLD! How hard is that? Wouldn't one "casting call" have brought lots of actresses forward, applying? Fuhgettaboutit.
And, now, this?
Biting the hand that feeds ya is CANNIBALISM.
Dan really did this. And, he's playing the VICTIM!
There must be a nice touch, somewhere, seeing this man now in Nixon's shoes. But he's still a midget. Nixon's shoes are way to large for this schuck.
Of course, the irony is that Larry King actually got an audience! Got up there where this show got to U-Tube. And, the Net.
Two old men with false teeth. Keeping their pants up with suspenders. And, Gunga Dan cried.
As to C-BS, their bullshit brings me to believe a plague could fall on both houses, and I wouldn't care.
Let alone how BELDAR sums up one piece. He thought Katic Couric was the "Dan's Revenge."
But, no. The play's not over. And, it could get funnier.
Posted by Harry | September 22, 2007 10:03 PM
What I don't get is it's gossip and being just darn mean when the people presenting the evidence were there.
If, OTOH, a talking head on fox /LGF / Powerline say's it was a lie then hey it must be the truth.
Please oh please refute the FACTS in the memo with evidence from people who were present. I don't want to hear font..I want to hear facts.
I want to hear he is a real cowboy / warrior / real man. I want to hear he's not just some jumped up Captain Kangaroo who likes to play dressup.
I realise, like LOL he's not running in the next election, it's real funny that this little man has screwed up the country big time. It's funny that this little man got the US into a war that "the next president can figure out" (his words). It's funny that for most of his life other people have been cleaning up his failures and crap and now it's up to a whole friggin country to do it.
Start at the beginning and refute line by line the facts.
I'll help by spelling out the first couple of letters
F.A.I.L.U.R.E.
Posted by Bennett | September 22, 2007 10:37 PM
"What I don't get is it's gossip and being just darn mean when the people presenting the evidence were there."
What people? Killian's secretary stated that she hadn't typed the memos, had no personal knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard but believed that what the memos said could be true. Hardly a corroborating witness.
Hodges, Killian's supervisor, was read the documents over the phone, never saw them and denied he had validated them.
Killians' wife and son claimed they were forgeries.
Strong, someone who worked in the office at the Guard, said he knew nothing about the contents of the memo and merely commented that they were compatible with what he remembered about how Killian did things.
If you have evidence, Harry, that contradicts the discrediting of both the memos and their contents then you need to produce it. It would be of great interest to a great many people.
It doesn't help your argument that you have now moved beyond unsupported statements about these specific memos to a broader indictment of Bush as a whole. Are we to conclude that the contents of the memos must be accurate because you believe Bush is a failure as President?
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 22, 2007 10:38 PM
Harry, you're busted. You're a brainwashed BBC type, not even an American. When you used the quaint word "realise" you gave yourself away. Isn't it almost closing time over there?
Here's a news source you can TRUST!
Firesign Theatre founder Peter Bergman will be anchoring the news on the CBS all-news station KFWB in LA from 1 AM to 5 AM Pacific time (4 AM to 8 AM Eastern) this Sunday and Monday morning, and again Saturday and Sunday mornings for the next two weekends.
You can stream KFWB on their website at www.kfwb.com
Posted by Harry | September 22, 2007 10:49 PM
Again just refute the FACTS...not the font
Posted by runawayyyy | September 22, 2007 11:05 PM
I just love these trolls....they insist that the "facts" presented in memos they ADMIT are fake must be refuted....now, if the memos are fakes, how can they, by definition, contain any "facts"?
Tell ya what....why don't you show us ANY evidence whatsoever, that does NOT come from a memo that you admit is a fake, and backs up the "facts" that you insist are still in those fake memos. Go ahead, we're waiting.
Posted by Bennett | September 22, 2007 11:08 PM
"Again just refute the FACTS"
No, Harry, you do that. Produce your evidence. Not one witness has been willing to say that he or she had personal, direct knowledge of the events described in the memos, not one person (other than Bill Burkett himself, the original purveyor of the memos. But he wasn't there during the events in question and has lied repeatedly about his original source for the memos).
If you can prove it, then do it. It's your burden, not ours.
Posted by unclesmrgol | September 22, 2007 11:08 PM
Harry,
A draft memorandum that's supposedly typed and locked in a drawer and never sent, and is ultimately destroyed, is what?
It certainly is not the memorandum in CBS' posession, and Knox makes that clear.
To say that the memo was "like" ones she typed does not make it one she typed. She make it clear that the form of the memo matched material that Killiam gave her, but not content. She never said, "if you leave off the fake signature, this is just a microsoft word version of something I once typed."
One possibility is that Burkett had access to a memo Killiam or another TANG colonel did write, and changed convenient details to have it point to Bush. That would explain (a) the closeness of the content of the memorandum to a type Killiam would have written, and (b) the lack of an original, and (c) the nonmilitary paraphrasing in the memo which may have been done by accident during a process designed to prevent tracing back the exact copy to another service person's files.
What's really weird about the Burkett story is that he claims the purged documents about Bush were placed in a waste paper basket he had access to. He rummaged through the documents which he claimed were 20-40 pages but only scanned the top 6-8. This is sort of like "I woke up after the third scream" testimony -- (a) how could he know there were 20-40 pages without scanning the whole stack, and (b) why wouldn't he have just absconded with the whole set and reviewed them later at his leisure? Is he saying that waste paper basket was better watched than the National Archives? Why were we never introduced to the real documents -- all 20-40 pages, or even just the 6-8 pages Burkett claims he saw?
The ultimate statement is this one from CBS. Think of what CBS is saying. As equivocal as this apology is, I recognize eaten crow when I see it.
Posted by Carol Herman | September 23, 2007 12:09 AM
Ah, NOT just the memo was fake! So, too, the gal, Lucy Ramirez! NO. She wasn't a Mexican illegal, either. SHE NEVER EXISTED. Oh, and she left without a trace.
The best evidence, however, is not "waking up after the 3rd scream," as if your dreams are counting; but the 4-million EXTRA votes Bush got in his second, 2004 contest. WHICH CAME FROM THE C-BS "SNAFU."
Did Gunga Dan really want to increase voter turnout for Bush? Well, he did. ANYWAY.
And, then?
Instead of being tossed out on his ear; the suits at Black Rock went into CYA mode. And, Dan stayed anchored in 3rd place for two more years.
It's insulting to think he has anything to complain of, here.
But now that he has? So what? C-BS hasn't figured out how to be competitive. I can see lawyers talking it into Dan to "go for it," on contingency. I don't even think he had to put up a dime.
Blame it on IMUS.
Posted by BobM | September 23, 2007 2:02 AM
Harry : ..."In fact, according to the secretary who typed the memo's, they contained nothing but fact."....
I can see why Dug-0ut Dan is your hero, like him you can't keep the details of your slander straight. The (fake) memos were supposed to have been created in secrecy by the (dead, so unavailable) author - PERSONALLY. Of course WHY an officer supposedly colluding in breaking military regs would WANT to document his reg-breaking always seemed an inconvenient question to me.
Posted by The Yell | September 23, 2007 2:21 AM
OK Harry. Here's your facts.
hat tip:
http://www.rathergate.com/?p=67
MRS. KNOX [Jed Babbin]
Apparently the Chirac Broadcasting System hasn't learned the first rule of politics: when you're in a hole, stop digging. Marian Carr Knox -- the 86-year old former secretary to Dubya's squadron commander, Jerry Killian -- was flown to New York to talk to 60 Minutes last night, and began the conversation by saying the famous CBS memos weren't authentic. But, like any lawyer who doesn't have opposing counsel to object to improper questions, Dan Rather led her through statements about which she apparently knew nothing. And Mrs. Knox speculated her heart out.
Mrs. Knox said that though the CBS documents weren't real, what is stated in the forgeries is. She talked and talked about how Killian was upset with Mr. Bush, how the rest of the pilots resented him for being a child of privilege, and said that Killian's son -- who disputes the validity of the CBS case against Mr. Bush -- "...has no way of knowing whether it's true or not." And she does? Not according to the members of the squadron I spoke to this morning.
Col. Bill Campenni (USAF, Ret.) wondered just how Mrs. Knox would have more knowledge than Killian's son. He told me that not only was young Killian the son of the squadron commander, he was a member of the squadron on duty with the rest of the guys. Mrs. Knox -- the squadron secretary -- only knew paper. Not people. Killian's son was in a very good position to know, and she wasn't.
Mrs. Knox said she remembered that Killian was upset because Mr. Bush didn't take his flight physical. And she transforms Killian's supposed frustration into a statement that the other pilots werer resentful of Mr. Bush be cause of his attitude. That's flatly false according to both Campenni and Joe Glavin, another pilot who flew with Dubya. I asked Glavin if there was any such resentment of Bush. He said, "Absolutely not," and added that you'd have a really hard time finding anyone who would agree with that.
(Bill Campenni reminds me that though Mr. Bush missed the physical, it made no sense for him to have taken one. He wasn't going to continue flying. His skill with the F-102 was obsolete, and he wasn't going to retrain for another aircraft. He was about to leave the Guard to go to Harvard. Which makes it pretty unlikely that Killian actually ordered Mr. Bush to take the physical.)
So why is Mrs. Knox saying all this? Glavin says nobody should care what she said. "She had nothing to do with the unit. She didn't fly, she didn't hang out with us." According to Glavin, she was out of the mainstream of the squadron, in an office that the pilots only visited occasionally. According to Bill Campenni, Knox is a "yellow dog" democrat, and her biases were noticeable even in 1972. Leave it to CBS to find the one yellow dog Dem in the 1972 Texas Air National Guard. Her statement is as valid as the CBS memos.
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_09_12_corner-archive.asp#039978
Thanks for asking.
If you read Rather's complaint http://www.observer.com/files/Rather_suit.pdf
It becomes clear that he's going into court with a bald-faced lie.
"54. Mr. Heyward also directed Mr. Rather not to respond to the accusations of bias made against him personally, assuring Mr. Rather that CBS would defend and stand by him. Relying on these assurances, Mr. Rather complied and did not respond to personal attacks on his journalistic integrity."
Untrue. Rathergate.com has daily updates of Rather's responses. Rather's timeline in the complaint also totally fails to mention his repetition of the memo's charges, and a defense of them, on a broadcast September 15, 2004. He doesn't claim Heyward made him do it. He just doesn't relate it happened. I presume CBS will have tape to exhibit.
Posted by The Yell | September 23, 2007 3:27 AM
OK Harry. The people there dispute the facts.
" Marian Carr Knox -- the 86-year old former secretary to Dubya's squadron commander, Jerry Killian -- was flown to New York to talk to 60 Minutes last night, and began the conversation by saying the famous CBS memos weren't authentic. But, like any lawyer who doesn't have opposing counsel to object to improper questions, Dan Rather led her through statements about which she apparently knew nothing. And Mrs. Knox speculated her heart out.
Mrs. Knox said that though the CBS documents weren't real, what is stated in the forgeries is. She talked and talked about how Killian was upset with Mr. Bush, how the rest of the pilots resented him for being a child of privilege, and said that Killian's son -- who disputes the validity of the CBS case against Mr. Bush -- "...has no way of knowing whether it's true or not." And she does? Not according to the members of the squadron I spoke to this morning.
Col. Bill Campenni (USAF, Ret.) wondered just how Mrs. Knox would have more knowledge than Killian's son. He told me that not only was young Killian the son of the squadron commander, he was a member of the squadron on duty with the rest of the guys. Mrs. Knox -- the squadron secretary -- only knew paper. Not people. Killian's son was in a very good position to know, and she wasn't.
Mrs. Knox said she remembered that Killian was upset because Mr. Bush didn't take his flight physical. And she transforms Killian's supposed frustration into a statement that the other pilots werer resentful of Mr. Bush be cause of his attitude. That's flatly false according to both Campenni and Joe Glavin, another pilot who flew with Dubya. I asked Glavin if there was any such resentment of Bush. He said, "Absolutely not," and added that you'd have a really hard time finding anyone who would agree with that.
(Bill Campenni reminds me that though Mr. Bush missed the physical, it made no sense for him to have taken one. He wasn't going to continue flying. His skill with the F-102 was obsolete, and he wasn't going to retrain for another aircraft. He was about to leave the Guard to go to Harvard. Which makes it pretty unlikely that Killian actually ordered Mr. Bush to take the physical.)
So why is Mrs. Knox saying all this? Glavin says nobody should care what she said. "She had nothing to do with the unit. She didn't fly, she didn't hang out with us." According to Glavin, she was out of the mainstream of the squadron, in an office that the pilots only visited occasionally. According to Bill Campenni, Knox is a "yellow dog" democrat, and her biases were noticeable even in 1972. Leave it to CBS to find the one yellow dog Dem in the 1972 Texas Air National Guard. Her statement is as valid as the CBS memos."
Jed Babbin, 9.18.04
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_09_12_corner-archive.asp#039978
www.rathergate.com has day-by-day blow-by-blow accounts of the debacle.
Posted by The Yell | September 23, 2007 1:48 PM
Sorry for that double post, the ethernet ate my first one for a time apparently.
Posted by Harry | September 23, 2007 2:36 PM
"Bill Campenni reminds me that though Mr. Bush missed the physical, it made no sense for him to have taken one. He wasn't going to continue flying. His skill with the F-102 was obsolete, and he wasn't going to retrain for another aircraft. He was about to leave the Guard to go to Harvard. Which makes it pretty unlikely that Killian actually ordered Mr. Bush to take the physical.)"
Hmmm he missed his physical a full TWO years before his commitment was up.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,590683-2,00.html
Further:
Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/12/bushs_loss_of_flying_status_should_have_spurred_probe/
Come again about flight status. Also, how is it that Bush got to be the decider in regards to his status in the TANG, I'd assume that would be up to his commanding officer. Problem is is that there a huge document gap during this period.
Then again Killian is dead and his secretary is a gosh darn liar right......
Posted by The Yell | September 23, 2007 2:58 PM
"Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969."
I dunno, but I doubt there was ever a protest on the steps of Capitol Hill by discharged Air National Guard pilots who were cruelly denied their oppportunity to fly military aircraft into 1975. I seem to recall there was a massive policy shift regarding the size of the armed forces in those years.
Had he been minded, George W. Bush probably could have fought his way from the TANG into the regular AF and gone on to fly the Space Shuttle. He was not so minded. He wanted out, and the military saw fit to accomodate his wishes, as it sees fit to ignore the wishes of many who would have liked to stay through times of demobilization.
Anyhow, you wanted some personal recollections of anybody who could challenge Marian Knox. There are three right there: Joe Campenni, Killian Jr., and Joe Glavin. Three to one. If you want to thrash it out with them you could ask Jed Babbin to put you in touch.
Posted by Harry | September 23, 2007 3:05 PM
So you believe, in spite of all evidence, that Bush just up and decided 3 years into a 5 year commitment that he had just about had enough. So ladeedah he kust up and quits and no one complains in the slightest.
Further that because he was able to do this also means that he was not recieving special treatment and or was given a pass. After all I mean those grunts in Vietnam could do much the same thing right? I remember tons of them who just up and decided one day that they had about enough and decided to just quit before their military commitment was over.
There was a name for those people ....let me think ....oh yeah deserters, that's it.
The more you try to sugar coat and excuse his actions the more they stink.
Posted by The Yell | September 23, 2007 3:24 PM
"So you believe, in spite of all evidence, that Bush just up and decided 3 years into a 5 year commitment that he had just about had enough. So ladeedah he kust up and quits and no one complains in the slightest."
No. I believe, BECAUSE OF ALL EVIDENCE, that Bush just up and decided 3 years into a half-ass military career, that he had just about enough. So he asked to leave and the Pentagon decided it could evacuate Vietnam without the services of George W. Bush.
"Further that because he was able to do this also means that he was not recieving special treatment and or was given a pass."
Got anything not forged or disputed on a 3:1 basis, to show he was?
"After all I mean those grunts in Vietnam could do much the same thing right? I remember tons of them who just up and decided one day that they had about enough and decided to just quit before their military commitment was over."
Is this a complaint about Bush, or about the fact that service in the stateside Air National Guard was not the same as service in regular combat units in Vietnam?
There is a reason this story faded away for three years. Go ahead and browse rathergate.com for the witnesses and experts who came forward to blow this tale out of the water three years ago.
Posted by Harry | September 23, 2007 5:10 PM
Do you really expect me to believe Bill Campenni now that's an unbiased source. After all isn't he the one who said:
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico.
Posted by Bennett | September 23, 2007 5:39 PM
Still with no evidence of your own Harry?
Or is this a Zen kind of thing: The absence of proof is not the proof of absence.
But that's probably a little too abstract for us empiricist types.
But soldier on my friend, soldier on.
Posted by Mark F. | September 23, 2007 7:25 PM
The Yell, good comments on the demobilization and trying to remain in the armed services during such a time. My oldest brother was a major after the Korean War, when there was a demobilization called the Reduction In Force. In order to stay in the Army, he had to accept being reduced in rank to ranking sergeant, just below sergeant major
Posted by Harry | September 23, 2007 8:03 PM
Still with no evidence of your own Harry?
What evidence....no one has given me any evidence that the memo and or contents isn't factual. You quote a die hard supporter of Bush...I quote a so called "yellow dog", are either of them wrong, depends on your point of view I guess.
The Yell sates that bush was so close to leaving that a physical was no longer neccesary. Fact is there was still 2 years left in Bush's delpoyment (that aint close).
Killian can no longer speak for himself but his secretary, becuase she didn't toe the party line is a liar....(that's a stretch)
Campenni is a valid source, even though he is about as unbiased as you can get. BTW how much evidence is there that the guy even served with Bush on the dates he claims. (some of his recollections are suspect)
Fact is Bush's whole military career is suspect. If there was no issues then why the gaps in record. Why the lack of documentation on the missed physical. At 1 million plus to train a pilot, it's just O.K. to walk away. Was Bush a responsible individual to do so? Was the missed physical due to drug testing (don't hit me with the 1981 crap when we all know it was implemented in 72).
My own opinion...is the guys a liar / a fraud / and 70+ percent agree with me.
Posted by Bennett | September 23, 2007 8:38 PM
Go back and read the comments already posted, Harry. Everything you state has been addressed.
I'm not going to go through it again. You have no evidence, just your own beliefs and opinions, of no more value than the secretary's or anyone else's.
If the memos are phony, it's all just sliced baloney.
Posted by The Yell | September 24, 2007 3:32 AM
"What evidence....no one has given me any evidence that the memo and or contents isn't factual."
Yes we have. Statements by fellow Guardsmen is evidence. Just as Knox's statements are evidence. If you don't think the evidence proves anything, that's your conclusion, not my failure to provide evidence.
"The Yell sates that"
Whoa. The Yell relates what others in the Guard at the time have stated. If you don't like what they say, you're arguing with them and their experience, not with me.
Further I remind you that it's not just Campenni, it's Campenni, Glavin, and Killian Jr. say.
There is a reason not even Keith Olbermann stands with Rather on this one. That reason is that people who do more thorough investigation than Rather did, come to a different conclusion. It's best summarized online at rathergate.com , and since all I'd do is cite to there, I'll join Bennett letting you read for yourself.