Letters to the Editor
-
pshaw!
the documents used in his "60 Minutes II" piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained -- and that that information is true. Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.
"Were not inauthentic." What a wonderfully bullshit-ful construction. When you can't say what you want to say in plain English, it's a sure sign you're committing baloneyous assault. But it's just what we've come to expect from Blumenthal the Political Hack.
The documents were as phoney as a three-dollar bill because they were shown, without at shadow of a doubt, to have been produced on computer-based word processing programs that did not exist when the docs were supposedly written. They were givene to Mary Mapes by a man who'd had a personal, decades-long hate campaign against all the Bushes.
And the most credible source you can image--the family of the officer who supposedly wrote the docs--have sworn up and down that he did not do that sort of thing and had not stored any such documents from any time during his military career.
Rather wants us to believe that he, the "tough" reporter, would just roll over an apologize for a story that he truly believed to be true? If you believe that, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Rather is trying to salvage his reputation, which will just sink even deeper into the toilet after this suit.
Most important, though, is who cares? Why can't the moonbats just let this be? Bush has said on many an occasion, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresposible." He admits he did not live a very good life for most of his young adult years.
But he didn't run for Prez based on his military record. Kerry did, conveniently forgetting that his military record was at best tainted, especially by his slandering of his fellow soldiers after the war.
-
CBS curried the favor of the Bush administration?
"In his effort to demonstrate his mistreatment, Rather will detail how network executives curried favor with the administration, offering him up as a human sacrifice."
Oh, pah-leeze, Sidney. Are you (and Dan Rather) actually trying to make the case that a major MSM channel like CBS was trying to get in bed with the Bush Administration? CBS? Are you saying the same MSM outlet that never missed an opportunity to blame George Bush suddenly grew fond of him a month before the election?
Wake up and smell the Starbucks.
-
Greg Palast's take on Rather's lawsuit
Here's a report from the investigative journalist Greg Palast.
http://www.gregpalast.com/dan-rather-tased-and-confused/
According to Palast, what Rather is complaining about is that he caved into Redstone/Viacom in the fall of 2004 to retreat from his story in exchange for an "extension of his contract" which he did not get. If Palast's report is correct Rather is not a stand-up hero silenced by big bullies but allowed himself to be bought off.
In any case, it was a sad and predictable story in the fall of 2004. As a reader of the Boston Globe I was already familiar with the story and so was immediately outraged at how fast the 60 Minutes story sank with little trace. A news story is not like a legal case. All that nonsense about the typewriter distracted everyone from the basic truth about Bush's cushy Air National Guard service, which he did not even complete.
Didn't have a physical probably because he couldn't have passed the drug screening. Now he's the "commander-in-chief" and the Big Decider, who is such a coward that he's a ranch owning Texan who's afraid of horses.
While Rather's lawsuit may bring the whole story to light, and that would be salutary, the deeper question that it won't answer is why the mainstream media continue to swallow the Bush administration lies and dutifully report them as "news."
It's left to a few cranks like Palast (whose book the tasered Florida student was waving as he rose to ask John Kerry a question) and a lot of us indignant citizens who took a dislike to Bush as soon as he strode onto the national scene. None of his faults and limitations or his tawdry history have been hidden. They're in plain view, but Rather and everyone else in the big media value their "access" more than the responsibility of their chosen profession to ask hard questions of those in power and contribute to the informed citizenry that is essential for a vibrant democracy.
(I didn't take the time to read all the previous posts, so if Palast's story has already been posted, I apologize.)
-
anonymous @ 12:35
Your three reasons do not mean automatically that he won't win a wrongful dismissal suit. The case, if accepted, will have to be tried on the facts (mostly relating to specific contractual issues). The relevancy of each of your three reasons (if defendant's counsel opts to introduce any of them - doubtful) would then have be adjudicated. Eventually, if he wins, some reasons you cite, if true, might reduce the size of an award. If he loses, it won't be because of the reasons you cite.
-
nope
Bush spent his first 9 months in office primarily fishing, but somehow that's okay with you?
Of course it's not okay. Why do you jump to the conclusion that somehow I think it is?
You liberals have such simplistic, binary minds.
-
Dan Rather's childist behavior
I've known how much of a far left radical Dan Rather is long before some of your smart left wing college nuts were born. Bitch, bitch about the unfavorable press. Blumenthal wouldn't and couldn't resist twisting the truth if he were looking him in the face, his radical blogs are nothing but left wing hate. Want to talk about Bush shirking his military duties, perhaps you left wing nuts prefer not to look at former President Clinton's record of dodging the draft. Talk about a conniver through his college career and political career, where's the left wing press? Ah, Yes, covering for him. His character wouldn't hold a candle to President Bush's morality and sincerity. With 19 of the 20 largest newspapers and all but Fox News on the air being far left wing, I don't know what you are thinking to accuse the press all as being too conservative. You radical left wing blogs don't know what truth is.