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

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

What do MAIN Stream Right AND Left both have in common?

They both cover up the treason of Hanoi Kerry AND attack the President.

Remember it was Free Republic that broke this story
NOT anyone in the "Main Stream" media.

[Chinito]

[True Republican Patriot]

A Liar Never admits their lies! never,never,never.
Remember his parting final interview with Saddam, it looked like he was going to hug and kiss the mass murderer and torturer before the end of the Interview.

[N. Theknow]

Dan Rather continues his "I am not a crook" tour.

And somewhere Richard Nixon is laughing his butt off.

[fight_truth_decay]

Dan Rather on The O'Reilly Factor...Dan Rather speaking in defense of public figures who make stuff up called Bill Clinton an "honest man" even as he acknowledged Clinton's whoppers. "Who among us have not lied about somebody?" asked Rather. "I think at the core he's an honest person…I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."

CUT

In an Mad Dan’s Noble Lie
By George Neumayr
Published 9/16/2004.... interview with the New York Observer, Rather also uses the phrase "fundamental truth." This is 1960s babble that amounts to saying: I, as a liberal, can tell lies for the greater good; my surface dishonesty conveys a deeper truth. Rather is falling back on the Noble Lie -- the idea that the enlightened are entitled to heap fables upon the hoi polloi for the sake of preserving proper order.

The transcendent truth that mitigates Rather's faked-up memos is apparently that Bush missed a physical examination over three decades ago -- not exactly the justification for the Noble Lie Plato envisioned in The Republic. Why allegations about a missed physical and truncated National Guard service trouble Rather so deeply when Bill Clinton's draft-dodging did not is another question Rather isn't likely to answer.

If the Noble Lie defense fails, what else can Rather try? The New York Observer article suggests he will try the I'm-on-the-right-side-of-history defense: "I think over the long haul, this will be consistent with our history and our traditions and reputation…We took heat during the McCarthy time, during civil rights, during Watergate. We haven't always been right, but our record is damn good."

Rather sounds a bit like the habitual liar in Whit Stillman's movie Metropolitan who, after getting called out for inventing a story about his archenemy abusing a girl, says, "Okay, so that person wasn't real; she's a composite, like in New York magazine." He then defends his lie on the grounds that it contained a basic truth about his nemesis.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7121

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

I don't know about anybody else, but I quit watching
Main Stream Right Wing Media
and listening to Main Stream Right Wing Radio
shortly after Nov 3.

I couldn't understand how the so called
Main Stream Right Wing Media
could say things like
"Senator Kerry was gracious in his concession speech..."
"Senator Kerry was so honorable..."
Etc

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Viet Nam Vet Ollie North nailed Hanoi Kerry on his false 1971 testimony.

"Kerry testified under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 that Americans in Vietnam had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war."

Set aside the horrific and defamatory nature of these accusations and ask this: Did he witness these atrocities? Did he try to stop them? If not, was he held accountable for dereliction of duty? If he knows the perpetrators, did he ever see that they were brought to justice? If not, why?"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040220.shtml

And FR's own Interesting Times nailed Hanoi Kerry for his lies in 1971

AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN J. PITKIN combat veteran of the Vietnam War
(Kerry pressured him to give false Winter Soldier testimony)
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=PitkinAff

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

[Racehorse]

Old movie scripts never die.  They simply replay and replay and replay on the evening news.  Anybody remember The Caine Mutiny and Captain Queeg's paranoid search for the strawberry thief?

Rather:  . . . "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."

Queeg:  They were all disloyal. I tried to run the ship properly by the book, but they fought me at every turn. If the crew wanted to walk around with their shirttails hanging out, that's all right, let them! Take the towline - defective equipment, no more, no less. But they encouraged the crew to go around, scoffing at me and spreading wild rumors about steaming in circles and then 'Old Yellowstain.' I was to blame for Lieutenant Maryk's incompetence and poor seamanship. Lieutenant Maryk was the perfect officer, but not Captain Queeg. Ah, but the strawberries! That's, that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist. And I would have produced that key if they hadn't pulled the Caine out of action. I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer. (He pauses - looks at all the questioning faces that stare back at him, and realizes that he has been ranting and raving.) Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory

[Mark in the Old South]

"Memo Real; Nobody lied"

Chisel that on his tombstone.

The sooner the better. (just kidding)

[DCPatriot]

I swear if I ever run into Dan Rather on the street.....

[js1138]

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

What a twit.

[Landru]

"It really does hurt to read, hear and watch this guy."

Does me.

"I'm embarassed for him."

Uh-huh, me too.

Whatever happened when those on top ultimately went out, they always did so.

...with grace.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

How come Right Wing MAIN Stream Media personalities
give Hanoi Kerry a free pass?

How come they always give the billionaires a free pass?

Remember Marc Rich of Pardongate?

mmmmmmm

[BushisTheMan]

We had things besides the documents, but for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, the focus became the documents.

I'd say "rightly" myself.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Why is there no justice for the 58,000 + names on the Viet Nam Wall?



Why is there no justice for to the millions,
who served with honor in Viet Nam?

When will the Right Wing Main Stream Media demand
that Hanoi Kerry apologize to the names on the Wall
And to Viet Nam Vets who served with honor?
Why are we still "war criminals" and Hanoi Kerry is a "hero"?
When will the GOP controlled Senate set the record straight?

[xzins]

He said that the commission couldn't prove that the documents weren't fake?

What numbskulls. No wonder they didn't find Rather biased....they couldn't find their ASS(umption) in the dark with their own 2 hands.

And he thinks they're authentic. Are their really Americans who buy this crap?

[CyberAnt]

This is Rather's - "I did not have sex with that woman ..."

He's so out of step with America - he has no idea the public is NOT with him. Even after Bush gets the highest number of votes in history .. Rather still tries to believe America believes and loves him, but hates Bush. You can't get much more delusional than that.

[george wythe]

Just because the panel refused to investigate the authenticity of the documents does not mean that the forgeries were real.

As someone already said, Dan Rather is delusional. There is no other explanation.

[Grampa Dave]

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

Excellent!