Posted on 09/20/2004 8:54:24 AM PDT by TheGeezer
Edited on 09/20/2004 9:07:32 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Update by moderator:
EXCLUSIVE
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
What the heck does that mean???
Nice pickup. Ya catching this Rush's researchers? Hugh's online monitors? Talk Show Hosts, Inc.?
CBS ain't covering Burkett's butt. That's fer sure.
This is a meaningless statement.
The moderator updated the article after he/she posted the text in the reply.
In good faith? Faith in what, that he'd be able to slide this one by us and because he's such a bigshot, no one would dare challenge him? Weasely little snot.
"Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "
Is this the statement?
But you did, Dan.
Pithy
:)
Agreed.
The source is coming next. He is going to have to out the source.
It means that CBS is more than happy to bend over and grab their ankles for whomever screwed them. Gee, wonder who that could be?
A tradition that's been dead since the Nixon Administration.
Okay, so don't give us this crap. If the memos are forged (which is now stipulated), then there is no reason to protect the source. Whoever gave these memos to CBS is running naked now and must be outed.
Let the feeding frenzy begin. We'll see to whom the trail leads.
If CBS continues to protect this source, then they are overtly engaging in a conspiracy (as opposed to the covert smear job they had hoped to do).
Time to get to investigating how CtheBS News allowed this to happen Dan. You were either a bumbling fool to go ahead with the story or you were complicit in the fraud. Which is it Dan?
I'm really confused here: is this a non-denial denial?
So, Dan, who are you still protecting?
Yep - 12:00 he puts out this tripe.
6:00 news tonite, he leads with "Although we have seen that the documents are probably not authentic, and we have serious questions about their source, the questions about Mr. Bush's Guard service still remain. When will Mr. Bush answer these damning questions? So far , from the white house, we have heard nothing on these serious allegations ....."
Translation: I, the mighty Dan Rather, was caught by some pajama wearing punks. Dammit.
Rush is ripping this statement and CBS apart at this time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.