Posted on 03/04/2005 8:45:05 AM PST by 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
Their responses are like true confession time, and they start to have real problems with their relatives and friends who still are luntic liars.
David Horowitz is a prime example of what happens to them when they leave the dark side.
That interview, his interview with Castro and other interviews with tyranical libs backs up your reply.
Unfortunately, 30 to 40% of Americans buy this bs.
"About three or four days after the casket is closed and buried."
THEN, they come back and vote for whoever the RATs have on the ballot!!!!
Unimaginable.
Some things never change.
Probably 30 to 40 % of adults on the east coast, who were alive before, during and right after our Revolutionary War, were still pro British and King George.
When they are 6 feet under. After that, they only vote dumbocRAT.
Mr. Burkett was referring to a three-hour interview between him and Mr. Rather, of which CBS News showed only a short clip. That clip was used to show that Mr. Burkett "misled" CBS producers about who had given him the documents. Mr. Burkett has said that the full tape casts his dealings with the network in a different light.
Mr. Burkett later scaled down his request, asking only for a letter signed by senior CBS News management stating certain facts about his reporter-source relationship with the network—a set of facts that both CBS and the investigative panel acknowledged to be true.
CBS News turned down Mr. Burkett’s offer.
So, CBS lied to Mr. Burkett also. Won't provide the a full unedited copy of the Crescent Court Dallas taping. Very interesting. Not that I feel sorry for Burkett. But a liar being lied to is probably hard to swallow for Burkett. Shows CBS is the bigger liar here.
Means CBS is the reason the investigation could go no further.
That Rather would still assert that these patently phony and discredited memos are real is unbelievable. What's the frequency Kenneth????
"When they are 6 feet under. After that, they only vote dumbocRAT."
Has anyone besides me ever wondered what the % of rat total voters is from dead voters?
PS: And Dan, keep up the good work. You are the best example of how bias esconced in the media centers first self-anoints its superiority, then grows arrogant and complacent... and your fall from yon heights (though with your eyes closed to the obvious, even as everyone around you can see your falling body grow ever smaller...) delightfully reflects a clear light on the irrelevance of the biased left.
The Emperor has no clothes.
My God, he's delusional! But he's an old dog too, too old to admit that his entire career has been a lie. It would just destroy him. Instead, he will go off into the sunset mumbling these statements to himself. I can see him now, roaming the streets of Austin, stopping passers-by to tell them 'but they never proved the memo was fake'.
It will be over soon. Enjoy while we can.
Dan will soon be out to pasture in that bastion of delusional Dems in Austin and will be the toast of the town. Maybe he can still get his daughter elected as dog catcher or something so he can convince himself that he's relevant. I'm embarrassed that HE'S from Texas, Natalie Maines.
Will do.
"It will be over soon. Enjoy while we can."
Ummmm I'm [unusually] *thick* today, bert.
I'd sure appreciate it if you w/could define "It" for me.
*Privately* if you'd like.
...of course.
Danny Boy is circling the bowl just like the other little democrat I gave birth to this morning.
Unfortunately, 30 to 40% of Americans buy this bs.
More unfortunate is that 30 to 40% of Americans buy the Democrat's line. IS it just a fact that approximately 1/3 of our citizens will NEVER get it?
"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."
This is laughable!
Hey Dan! You've had 5 1/2 months since your broadcast to authenticate the documents. Since you haven't, you obviously can't.
(BTW Dan, if you find yourself in need of a something to do these days, I'd be happy to pass your name along to this guy in Nigeria who pays decent commissions for amateur help on financial transactions.)
Possibly. But I'd certainly say he's deceitful.
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.