STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER (UPDATE: Statement released)

http://www.drudgereport.com ^ | Drudge

[TheGeezer]

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.

[VRWC_minion]

We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry

The entire document is WE/CBS made mistakes and I/Dan Rather regret this. He is in essence blaming everyone else yet assuming the blame.

Note, the first paragraph is all WE's. The second is all I's. His arrogance shines thru.

[TheBigB]

"I've apologized. Can't we all just move on? It's Karl Rove's fault."

[handy]

Name the souce DAN!!! We want names!

[alancarp]

I don't see the part in this statement (to get people like Juan Williams to SHUT UP) that says "We apologize to the President for implying in this story that he had disobeyed the order of a superior officer."

EVEN IN THE LAST WEEK Rather continued to insist that there was a story here! CBS MUST apologize for that.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

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.

Give Dan some credit.

Kerry would have gone ahead even if he knew then what he knows now.

[mewzilla]

CBS is channelling Emily Lutella: Never mind.

[Godzilla]

This does not absolve Rather and CBS. On the contrary, now there are serious issues dealing with falsfied government documents and did they know and who falsified them. Still a lot for them to answer for.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

There is no better late than never with this one. SeeBS was playing a desperate waiting game in the false hope that some verification would show up. None was because there isn't any.

[tdadams]

"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."

Emphasis mine. With favortism??? ROTFLMAO!!! What a pitiful excuse for a news organization.

[CatoRenasci]

The statement is too little, too late.

Rather is trying to weather the storm.

Rather, Mapes and Heyward, at a minimum, have to go!

[1stFreedom]

BAMMMMM!

In your face DANNNN!

LOL

[NonValueAdded]

Per Rush Limbaugh "this is embarrassing and pathetic to watch; it is only making things worth"

[Colofornian]

Corresponding statement from CBS:

"We've talked with leading scientists and they agree with our analysis: These documents simply evolved. There was no vast left-wing conspiracy. There was no document architect. There was no design. In fact, we've been able to trace the fact that these documents were at one time trees that evolved into paper, and that the trees have always been part of the eternal existing matter in the universe."

[mwl1]

Rather hot air in search of cheap grace.

[nathanbedford]

I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers.

I take that to mean that his source misled him. I think Dan knew more than he now allows, but lets take him at his word.

If his source misled him in an effort to fix a federal election, Dan has an affirmative duty to expose that source.

[NonValueAdded]

worse

[HalleysFifth]

Watch the language sonny! This isn't a DUnce forum.

[Howlin]

if I knew then what I know now

But you did, Dan.

[Lijahsbubbe]

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.

Then why did you present your expert as someone who verified the authenticity of the documents, when all along he was only examining the signature?

You knew the document was only a copy, so therefore you intentionally had someone compare the signatures on a COPY

[EggsAckley]

Here's the key part:

trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.