In Section X (Page 211) and headlined "Whether There Was A Political Agenda Driving The September 8 Segment," the report says this is "one of the most subjective, and most difficult (questions), that the Panel has sought to answer. The political agenda question was posed by the Panel directly to Dan Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, who appear to have drawn the greatest attention in terms of possible agendas. Both strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment."
I guess that settles it, then. Richard Nixon said he was not a crook, but that didn't stop Rather and CBS News from attempting to prove he was. How serious can one take a report that relies strictly on the testimony of the chief "suspects" that they had no political agenda?
But, I also believe we expected too much from Thornburgh and Boccardi. They did not work for us, not for any part of the government, especially not for the courts. How much further could they have gone in challenging Mapes and crew?
I'm just not so sure any inquiry short of that done by an interested prosecuting attorney would be free enough, or have access enough, or power enough, to peel back the CBS hide to where the bias gleams bright enough for even for them to see what everyone else sees so clearly. Who would have standing to do the work?
If Thornburgh and Boccardi were expected to do a thorough job they would NOT have been hired in the first place.