More......
As "Deep Throat," Felt, now 91, frequently met Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward in a Washington parking garage to provide or confirm information about the Watergate investigation, which drove President Nixon from office in 1974.
"What a terrific story," Rather said.
"This was great reporting. I think the public should know that great reporting starts with a publisher who has guts and an editor who has guts. And the role of the late Katherine Graham, who owned The Washington Post, is not to be underestimated," Rather said. He also praised former Post editor Ben Bradlee.
The Watergate affair "was a widespread criminal conspiracy" led by Nixon, using his power to take the view that "the Constitution doesn't apply to us because we're in power," said Rather. "If Mark Felt had not provided information to the Washington Post, I think they would have got away with it."
Courage,Dan.
Liberal bias is indeed a shortcoming.
How bout a US Senator who has over 900 FBI files? Would that be a story dipshit? " Er Ah, not if it's a democRAT Senator."
Don't you just hate people like that, Dan? Isn't it a good thing when their pointless careers, founded on lies and deception, are forced to come crashing down? Isn't that a good thing, Dan? Dan?, Dan?
Oh, come on, Dan. You just had a great big new one ripped on you (make you limp any?), are you trying for number three? If you know you're a victim of your own shortcomings, why not just STFU?
Give it up, Dan. You lied!
He is sorry he got caught after all these years of spreading lies.
One word comes to mind, delusional.
Pancake on a rabbit's head for that comment Dan.
Was Dan, in his own way, trying to tell us all his probelms stemmed from bed wetting?
Rather doesn't know when to shut the hell up and go away.
..."There certainly were days when I felt I was rode hard and put to bed wet,"....He worked in a brothel?
Please tell us more, Dan. Your personal insights, are intriguingly provocative.
EXCERPT
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/02/lkl.02.html
(Rather) ...Now, the documents were a support for those and an important support, and when questions were raised, well, how do we know that documents are true? We had some problems. However, I do want to point out, and I -- listen, anybody who wants to castigate this or fuss with this, have at it. I will point out that the panel, which was headed by a President Nixon, Reagan, Bush family supporter and a journalist who said that George Bush one was one of the greatest people he ever met -- this panel came forward and what they concluded, among the things they concluded after months of investigation and spending millions of dollars, they could not determine that the documents were fraudulent. Important point, that we don't know whether the documents were fraudulent or not.
KING: Are you saying the story might be correct?
RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.
KING: Do you have that view?
RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.
Number two, it's important, the panel said that this story was not -- the story was not born of any personal or political bias. Now, that's not all they said. They were very critical of CBS News, of "60 Minutes Weekday," and of myself, very critical of us for all kinds of things that they believe we should have done that we didn't do. And with some of those things, I do agree.
But I do hope people will keep in mind that two of their findings were what I just described to you. Wasn't born of political or personal bias, and they could not determine whether the documents were fraudulent or not. It's not a complaint, but I do want to point out -- and I understand what people write about this story, they often say, well, they dealt with fake documents or fraudulent documents. Let's just say gently that that's not known. That's not a fact. And if you're going to criticize us -- and I think we should be criticized for some of the things we did and didn't do in reporting -- then gently I say, maybe you wouldn't want to say that, and the panel could not and did not conclude it.
Now, James Goodale, a well-known First Amendment lawyer, has written, well, this is what Goodale wrote -- that if the panel couldn't prove that the documents were fraudulent, then why did they issue a report?
Now, I think I know the answer to that. That CBS, and I think rightly, and Viacom, which owns CBS, said, listen, we're catching so much heat that we need to address this.
But you know, by this late stage, I think this may be boring people cross-eyed to be talking about it.
(snip)
---
That's a little more than we needed to know, Danno.
Just explain to the ladies, "You can't do precision work with a sledgehammer."
;-)
Not soon enough.
If the story is supported by all kinds of things other than the obviously forged documents, why rely on the obviously forged documents at all? If it is still a legitimate story, why not present the case without using the obviously forged documents?
The argument could be made that CBSNews relied on the documents because TV news needs a visual item to flash on the screen, and that it is incapable of presenting a story that is purely verbal, without anything tangible to show. To me, this demonstrates the weakness of TV news, which is why I never rely on this medium. Stories with boffo visuals lead, and other stories languish or never make the air at all, because there is no visual angle. So you get ten days of wall-to-wall coverage on the Rodney King videotape, while more important stories are never heard.
Of course, in this particular case the entire story was BS from the git-go. But you will never hear Dan Rather admit that.