Rather: Memos Real, Insists to Letterman "Nobody Lied" at CBS (Transcript-RealPlayer)

MRC ^ | 10:15am EST, Friday March 4, 2005 | BrentBaker

[fight_truth_decay]

Dan Rather made clear on Thursday's Late Show with David Letterman that he thinks the George Bush National Guard memos are authentic and is still smarting over the appointment of Nixonite Richard Thornburgh to head the investigatory panel. Rather predicted that "given a little more time, perhaps we could have" authenticated the memos, downgraded the potential impact of his story as he maintained that "George Bush was destined to be re-elected pretty much whatever happened in August and September," described Thornburgh as someone who "was in the Nixon administration, says the Bushes are good friends of his, both President one and two Bush," crowed about how the panel found the story "was not motivated by political bias, and they said that, although they had four months and millions of dollars, they could not demonstrate that the documents were not authentic," resurrected his charge that those who attacked CBS over the story had "their own political motivations and agendas" and contended how, unlike in the Jayson Blair case at the New York Times, at CBS News "nobody lied."

Rather got three segments on the March 3 Late Show, and early this morning the MRC's Brad Wilmouth painstakingly corrected the closed-captioning against our DVR of the show, so the accurate transcript below of most of the second segment is unique to CyberAlert and the MRC:

Letterman: "Now, some time before the election on, I believe it was 60 Minutes Wednesday, is what it's called now, there was the report that CBS had in their hands documents, some sort of affidavits that indicated that during his service in the National Guard, George Bush was given preferential treatment. Is that so far what happened?"

Rather: "That's true. And we had other people, including the one-time Speaker of the Texas house saying that he intervened to get special treatment, but basically that's true."

Letterman: "Yeah, now, just taking that story in and of itself, would that have been a damaging story? Was it a damaging story? Is it, I mean, would it have caused people to change their votes? How big a story would that have been if, in fact, it had been verified?"

Rather: "I don't know because we never reached that point. We put it on the air with what we thought was credibility. We had things besides the documents, but for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, the focus became the documents. We were not able to authenticate the documents as thoroughly as I think we should have. Given a little more time, perhaps we could have. My experience with elections is no one thing turns events around. I think that in this case, in this particular election, whatever was going to happen, let me say, below the surface, that the American people were going to be very reluctant to turn out a President as Commander-in-Chief in wartime until and unless it was demonstrated to them that the war was unwinnable, which was not the case. So, bottom line is, I think that George Bush was destined to be re-elected pretty much whatever happened in August and September."

Letterman: "But regarding that particular story, it was you and everybody else at CBS News felt that it was important to get that story on the air, right?"

Rather: "We did."

Letterman challenged Rather a bit: "Yeah. But isn't it true that in all walks of life some people are going to, I mean, in college, for example, I was given passing grades that I could never have driven to, you know what I'm saying?"

Rather: "I do. I made some of those grades."

Letterman: "That's preferential treatment. And if somebody wanted to do a story about that, okay, you know, I guess that did happen. So I'm trying to separate the two events. How big a story would that have been, and you're saying probably not to the extent of affecting the election. Now, the credibility, the veracity of the documents comes into question and then what happens?"

Rather: "Well, a panel was appointed by CBS News to look into this-"

Letterman: "An independent panel?"

Rather: "An independent panel."

Letterman: "Is this a big thing for a network news organization to have endured?"

Rather: "I think the answer to that is yes, yes. And Richard Thornburgh, former attorney general who was in the Nixon administration, says the Bushes are good friends of his, both President one and two Bush. He headed the panel. They took the better part of four months, they spent several million dollars, some people say as much as $5 million, and came out with a report which I've read, thought about, absorbed it, take it seriously, move on and carry it with me into my work. Among the things, they concluded a lot of things, and many of them not complementary about our work. They concluded that whatever happened, whatever you thought about it, it was not motivated by political bias, and they said that, although they had four months and millions of dollars, they could not demonstrate that the documents were not authentic, that they were forgeries. They said they couldn't make that conclusion. They also encouraged CBS News to rededicate itself to aggressive investigative reporting when warranted and not let this discourage them from doing so. That's a summary, it's a short summary. This panel report is big enough, you know, if you want to read it, it's, I don't know, is big enough to make a door stop."

Letterman: "I need a door stop. So let me go back to these two points. They said, one, that it was not motivated by political bias?"

Rather: "That's right."

Letterman: "So CBS News and yourself and others cleared of that, and that seemed to be a great point of criticism, did it not, that there was political bias here, that-"

Rather: "Well, there were people with their own political motivations and agendas, and some people who didn't have that, who were asking the question. That's one reason the panel was appointed. That was one of their conclusions."

Letterman pushed Rather's line about no bias and how the documents were not forgeries: "But that charge has been erased by the committee, the fact-finding committee?"

Rather: "That was their conclusion."

Letterman: "That did not exist. That evaporated. And secondly, they could not prove that the documents were false. They could not prove that they were true and accurate, but they also could not prove that they were false."

Rather: "That's correct."

Letterman: "So that's a push right there."

Rather: "Well, some people would not regard it, but you've summarized it correctly. They had a lot of other findings, but those were among the findings."

Letterman seem befuddled: "So with that in mind, and it seems to me like those were certainly the fire points of this investigation, why then were there people let go? Why was it recommended that people be fired?"

Rather: "Well, because Les Moonves, who heads CBS, read the panel report. He had some tough decisions to make. And he said that it was his conclusion that on the basis of the panel's report and finding that four people, and I hope it won't be lost sight of that these are four people who worked hard for CBS News and Les Moonves acknowledged that, and in some cases they helped us break one of the most important stories in recent years, the Abu Ghraib story, but it was his judgment that he needed to do this for the good of the organization, for the good of CBS News, and that's a decision he made."

Letterman: "But I still don't understand, if the committee investigating this cleared people of the most weighty issues, the political motivation did not exist and the fact that we couldn't determine that these documents were fraud, why did anybody have to lose a job? Why isn't this just, as they say in racing, just one of them racing deals?"

[audience laughter]

Rather: "The committee didn't say it was just one of those racing deals. Well, first of all, we've summarized the committee findings and summarized what I think are some of the most important, but the panel was critical, in some cases very critical, of the way the story was handled. But again, Les Moonves had some difficult decisions to make. He read the report, thought about it. He had it well ahead of time, he had it a week or eight days ahead of time, thought about it. And, you know, he had difficult decisions to make, and he made them, gave his reasons for making them. You come back to it, well, you know, since these were two of the most important findings, I think the best answer, I'm not answering for Les Moonves, you have that close endearing relationship with him. [Letterman laughs] Some of the rest of us are somewhat more removed. That there were other findings of the committee, of the panel on which Les just looked at it and said I think I need to make this move."

Letterman: "Did you agree with his decisions for the dismissals?"

Rather: "Whether I agree with it or not doesn't matter. It was his decision to make. He made 'em. I respect that he had some tough choices to make. And that's where I have to leave it."

Letterman: "Were you sorry that these people were let go or did leave? I guess some quit, some were let go, right?"

Rather: "There were four, and three were asked to resign and one was let go at the end of her contract. The fact that a process, perhaps a necessary process resulted in four friends, colleagues, people who give in good work had to be let go is never very far from my mind."

Letterman: "And in a situation like this, it was so public, right or wrong, left or right, people early on make up their minds about it, such a high-profile story and such a great journalistic institution, should the President of CBS News have stepped down? Should he have stepped forward and taken the bullet and stepped down?"

Rather: "He's on vacation right now, but when he gets back, you can ask him."

[audience laughter]

Letterman: "Do you think that all of this has been handled fairly? Do you think it was too much about something that was later disproved or that evaporated? Or how do you feel about the proceedings after the fact?"

Rather: "Dave, this is exactly how I feel: It's behind us. We have to look forward. At some point, you know, you've had ups and downs in your career. You had criticisms. Sometimes you think it's justified and sometimes not. But at a certain point you have to say, the committee, the panel has spoken. The corporate leadership has spoken. This is how it is. Put a period. I take it with me and let's go forward in the work. That's exactly how I feel about it."

Letterman raised the Jayson Blair case: "I mean, if you take a look at the New York Times, a few years ago and for quite a lengthy period of time, it looked like that newspaper was falling apart. All they had left was the classifieds pretty much. [audience laughter] I mean, it was one thing after another, guys making up stories and phony headlines and on and on and on, but yet still I think it's regarded as the finest newspaper in the country. So you do, you have to accept and make changes and continue and that's what you and the network are doing."

Rather: "I agree with that completely, but I would want to point out something that is unquestionably true, and that is in the case of the Times, somebody, a particular somebody, had lied for a very long time, and it lasted over a long period of time. In the case, whatever one thinks of what we did or didn't do with the story in question here, nobody broke the law, nobody lied. Depending on your point of view, it was a mistake, and who hasn't made a mistake somewhere along the line? So there's that difference. But I think the Times handled their situation very well, and I agree with you that they're probably the world's greatest newspaper."

The Late Show Web site has a RealPlayer clip of a portion of the Letterman-Rather session. You'll see it on the "Dave TV" page: www.cbs.com

For the MRC's compilation of CyberAlert coverage of memogate: www.mediaresearch.org

CUT

[DrNo]

And secondly, they could not prove that the documents were false. They could not prove that they were true and accurate, but they also could not prove that they were false."

Yeah, and you can't prove there aren't UFOs and little green men either!

[Grampa Dave]

"Never. They'll be lying to St. Peter as he points to the "down" elevator."

That may be the best answer in the years, I have been asking the question, "When do lunatic liberals stop lying?"

[ALOHA RONNIE]

,

NEVER FORGET


DAN RATHER did all he could to unseat President NIXON in a Time of War long ago and it cost the then Free South Vietnamese People their Freedom

DAN RATHER did all he could to unseat President BUSH in a new Time of War. Will it cost us ours now?

And why is LIBERAL Los Angeles Times Media "Critic" DAVID SHAW is still telling us that:


RATHER's work 'Shoddy, Slipshod' not LIBERAL..?

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227809/posts


NEVER FORGET

.

[mngalt]

So, Dan. You conclude, along with the investigators, that there was no political bias with that story? You and your producer devoted the resources of CBS News for FIVE YEARS to a story you now say was of little or no consequence? Call me Ishmael, but it sounds to me more like Ahab chasing the Great White Whale, like a life's obsession. Oh, and rushing it to air mere weeks before an election, even though you couldn't verify the authenticity of the documents (nobody is required to "prove" that they're fakes, Dan)? The timing alone doesn't speak to political bias?

You're still full of it, Gunga Dan. I hope this haunts you into your grave, and beyond.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Instead of attacking the traitor Hanoi Kerry we get this.

Now can anyone name 1 so called MAIN Stream Right Wing Media
personality

(we know Russert on tv and Imus on radio from the Left have)

that has asked,

in 2005,

these questions?

"Asked Kerry when he will sign Form 180.

(Even though President Bush signed his Form 180)

Or how could Kerry have a top secret clearance,
and access to US intelligence
WITHOUT revealing ALL his military records to the US Senate

Who in the US Senate has seen ALL of Kerry's military records?

Who, in the US Senate, gave him his top secret clearance?

Or why Kerry is still in the US Senate.
This is in violation of
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Or when Kerry will set the record straight
on his false testimony in April 71"

Distribute these url's in e-mail, Vet boards, Conservative boards, etc.

EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!

MUST SEE WEBSITE!!!!

http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html

Full details on these url's!

http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html

There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.

http://stophanoikerry.150m.com

[Cicero]

A liberal quits lying--either to himself or to others--when he ceases to be a liberal.

[texan75010]

I wonder if they even tried to prove that the memos were fake. Seems like they would have spent their efforts trying to prove they were authentic.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

WAKEUP AMERICA!

For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.

Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen

Hanoi Kerry Timeline of a traitor
includes FBI files

http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html

Harvard Crimson : Kerry refused order to destroy Viet Cong village

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185

Published on Wednesday, February 18, 1970
John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress

By SAMUEL Z. GOLDHABER
Crimson Staff Writer

"...One time Kerry was ordered to destroy a Viet Cong village
but disobeyed orders and suggested that the Navy Command
simply send in a Psychological Warfare team to be
friend the villagers with food, hospital supplies,
and better educational facilities."

Hanoi Kerry and War Crimes in Vietnam

He was in command of a Swift Boat
and ordered his men to do these things.
Listen to this 1971 audio clip in Kerry's own words.

LONG BEFORE THE '04 Election

Listen Here

http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3

The traitor is doing the same thing he has always done.

Aiding the enemy!

Kerry Meets With Syrian President Jan 05

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316737/posts

[Cosmo]

It really does hurt to read, hear and watch this guy . I'm embarassed for him. He's America's very own Baghdad Bob.

[Area51]

You know it's really too bad Dan the News Man didn't put this much effort into investigative reporting when the Juanitta Broaddrick Rape allegations against then Sitting President Bubba Clinton took place.


The SOB would have been voted out of office with a story hitting the air about it during the Impeachment trial.

But Hey, Dan the News man - no political bias there.

[rhombus]

Their responses are incredible.

Any hints?

[FreedomFarmer]

It's not a lie if they believe it and they do believe this...

You have correctly defined 'Faith' as they know it.
Socialism IS their religion, and they are quite willing to do or say anything to force conversion on us.

[Area51]

He'll die off mumbling away about "the Frequency Kenneth" on some low rent cable channel somewhere like Gary, Indiana.

[fight_truth_decay]

CBS News Producer Fired In Memogate Will Shop Her Book-March 4, 2005 NYObserver

[DustyMoment]

Rather: Memos Real, Insists to Letterman "Nobody Lied" at CBS

And, thus, Rather employs the Clinton strategy - tell the lie, tell it often enough . . . . . . . .

You get the point.

[Young Werther]

Even if Rather brushes his teeth with Ipana he won't be able to get rid of his "Truth Decay!"

Hear Bucky Sing!

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Tainted media [Kerry's 'honorable' discharge?]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345874/posts

"Some of the public have begun to wake up but more need to do so.
Many in the media also need to wake up to what they are doing, or failing to do,
when their politics taints their work."

TownHall.com ^ | February 18, 2005 | Thomas Sowell

[fight_truth_decay]

Burkett:
"VIACOM/CBS did absolutely nothing to defend me, though that was a part of my agreement with them," wrote Mr. Burkett in an e-mail to The Observer. "But even worse, VIACOM/CBS always made sure by acts of commission or omission that they precluded me from defending myself. I will assure you, any source should be wary of dealing with confidences, confidentiality or deals with the media. CBS wasn’t the only one to violate such agreements; but they were far worse than others. And when it came down to the bottom line, VIACOM/CBS senior leaders exposed me … and then blamed me for their own mistakes. I would warn anyone—whistleblowers or not—against trusting either the mainstream or blogger communities. They’re in it for themselves and will sell you down the river at the drop of a hat."

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

CPAC 2005: 02/18/05 Courage Under Fire Award (Story AND Audio Link)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1347932/posts

Rear ADM. Roy Hoffman asking the questions
that Main Stream Media should be asking!

Both Right and Left!

02/18/05

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346397/posts

"Mary Beth Cahill getting it for referring to"discredited" swiftboat vets.
Challenged anyone to come up with anything that has been "discredited"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346397/posts?page=113#113

[fight_truth_decay]

Link to Post #38
http://nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage1.asp