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)
Lawdie..he's still spinning..and they're going to let him n the Sunday 60 minutes?..the MSM keeps jumping into its own grave, digging it deeper..
That excerpt is stunning. Rather's contact with reality is extremely tenuous.
And he still thinks of himself as a "journalist"?
Someone in his family should rein him in with a butterfly net and set him up in a remodeled garage to live out his days.
Leni