Rather: Bush Guard Memo Story "Accurate," Never Proven Not So

In an interview with Marvin Kalb carried live by C-SPAN from the National Press Club on Monday night, Dan Rather made quite clear that he believes in the accuracy of his Bush National Guard story based on what everyone else realizes were fabricated memos. Rather argued that "one supporting pillar of the story, albeit an important one, one supporting pillar was brought into question.

To this day no one has proven whether it was what it purported to be or not." Kalb pressed for clarification: "I believe you just said that you think the story is accurate?" Rather affirmed: "The story is accurate." Rather soon maintained that the public recognizes the "hidden hand pressure" politicians exert on media executives and so "they understood that what we reported as the central facts of the story and there were new insights into the President's, were correct and to this day, by the way have not been denied which is always the test of whether," and he moved on before finishing his sentence. Later, talking about using "courage" as a sign-off in the mid-1980s, Rather rued: "There's part of me, it says, you know, 'damn I wish I hadn't caved, I wish I'd stuck with it.'" That prompted Kalb to ask: "Do you think your network showed courage last fall?" Rather answered by remaining silent for seven seconds.

On bloggers, who were credited with exposing the forged memos, Rather condescendingly suggested there are some in that field with integrity equal to his: "There are bloggers who have as much integrity as I, or the most integrity-filled people I know." Showing that he still sees the episode through political eyes, he complained about how the news media "picked up pretty quickly on those bloggers who were partisan, politically affiliated and/or had an ideological axe to grind with us."

Rather also admitted his naivete about the impact of bloggers: "I think it was true of a lot of news organizations, unaware or not knowing enough of how quickly bloggers could strike."

Kalb, a former correspondent for both CBS News and NBC News, where he hosted Meet the Press, suggested a pre-planned conspiracy against the CBS story as he marveled at how the bloggers were able to react so quickly -- posting evidence within hours which undermined the authenticity of the memos.

Kalb was hardly an impartial interviewer. The press release last week, from the George Washington University announcing the event, featured this bit of infatuation for Rather by Kalb: "Dan Rather has been my friend and colleague for more than 40 years. I think he is an exceptional journalist, who can shed light on the radical changes sweeping through the media. He can also help us understand his unintended role as a player in last year's presidential election. I can't wait to sit down and talk with a journalist who has become a legend in his time."

Rather appeared in the latest installment of a series of interviews conducted by Kalb, which are presented under the moniker of The Kalb Report. Held at the National Press Club, the series is produced by the George Washington University and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University. C-SPAN, along with XM satellite radio and ABC-owned Washington, DC radio station WMAL, carried live the 75-minute-long September 26 session which began at 8pm EDT. The Kalb Report's Web site: www.gwu.edu

When posted, this item will include video and audio of Rather's claim that his story was accurate. Last night I also provided additional video clips, in both RealPlayer and Windows Media formats, to Matthew Sheffield, Executive Editor of the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org, for a node he began Monday night on the Rather interview. Go to: newsbusters.org

Now, highlights of Rather's remarks, based on the closed-captioning painstakingly corrected by me against the video:

# Rather: "One thing I learned, I knew it going in, but you know sometimes you have to keep learning. I'm fond of saying this because it's true: 'I don't always learn fast but I learn good.' And one of the things I learned about this is not to overgeneralize about bloggers. In going down the list of what things have happened to us. Yes, there's some strange and, to me, still mysterious things, certainly unexplained things about how it got attacked and why even before the program is over, but I try not to bog down in it. There are bloggers who have as much integrity as I, or the most integrity-filled people I know have, and who feel that it's their mission in life to ask questions and keep on asking questions. There are other bloggers, and I'll go ahead and say it that some of the quote, 'mainstream press,' seem to take, you know, if not delight in our dilemma, they picked up pretty quickly on those bloggers who were partisan, politically affiliated and/or had an ideological axe to grind with us. And instead of saying well, they've raised these questions, for example about the documents -- 'are these questions true?' -- next thing I know they were in mainstream newspapers and away it went. "But it's very important, Marvin, to understand that I, we had a responsibility when we did that story. We met that responsibility to the best of our ability at the time. We did not do it perfectly. We did not do it perfectly. And we, when I say we underestimated the potential of the attacks that were going to come on us, some of them from the right motivation, some of them from what I've described before. Here's the thing about blogging: You don't want to over-generalize. There are a lot of different kind of bloggers. But we, and I include myself in this, we dealt with a story that had thermo-nuclear potential for reaction. And instead of saying we have to be prepared to respond quickly to any and all criticism, we were remarkably unprepared for that. I think it's fair to say and again I just speak for myself but I believe it to be true of CBS New and I think it was true of a lot of news organizations, unaware or not knowing enough of how quickly bloggers could strike. Strike is kind of an emotionally-laden word, I guess. But both those who didn't wish us well -- and may have been organized for their own purposes -- but others who were saying hey, I don't believe this. You just don't want to over-generalize, but we were not prepared to meet."

# "Now an independent panel that was appointed, headed by a long-time Republican, a man -- Thornburg, who's former Attorney General of the United States and is a distinguished American, but a good friend of the Bush family headed this independent panel and the independent panel, what did they conclude? One, that what we did, whatever anybody thought about it was not born of political bias. Number two, that with three to four months, and many millions of dollars to spend on trying to determine, they could not and did not determine whether the documents in question were what they purported to be or not. And, the third thing that was said by the panel was that the major, the main reason that a panel had to be appointed and what they were most critical about is how we defended the story after the story had run. And I'm paraphrasing here but I think it's an accurate paraphrase, and I want it to be said in my own case that my principal ah, -- I don't want to say crime, my principal problem was that I stuck by the story, I stuck by our people for too long. I'm guilty of that. I believed in the story and the facts of the story were correct. "One supporting pillar of the story, albeit an important one, one supporting pillar was brought into question. To this day no one has proven whether it was what it purported to be or not. In terms of [unintelligible "myself"?] it was 'he stuck by the story,' I stuck by the story because I believed in it. 'He stuck with his people.' Listen I've made nearly every mistake in the book. But my attitude when we go into stories, we go into them together, we ride through whatever happened and we come out the other end together. You know, I didn't give up on my people, our people, I didn't and I won't." [Applause] Kalb: "Dan, thank you. You said, I believe you just said that you think the story is accurate." Rather: "The story is accurate." Kalb: "Okay."

# Kalb: "You have an opportunity now, I mean you're a reporter for 60 Minutes, that's a very important program. Would you go now and go back to that story and do it again and find the documentation that would in fact would prove what you believe to be the accuracy of that story?" Rather: "Straight up. No chaser, no. One, CBS News doesn't want me to do that story, they wouldn't let me do that story." Kalb: "Why?" Rather: "Well that's a question you have to ask them. But I've moved on from it and I've done my best to put it behind me, I've, you know, taken my licks, taken my shots."

# Rather: "I have always been humbled and I recognize that's not a word generally associated with anchor people and the egocentric world of television news, but I've always been humbled by how much the audience gets it. That is, if you do something wrong, if you try to fool them, they pick up on it right away. And never more than what this last year has said to me that the public at large did not, as you put it, 'feast' on us. The public at large, they got it. They knew exactly what happened. Nobody had to spend much time explaining it to them. We had a story, you can argue that we shouldn't have, might of, could of, shouldn't have handled during political camp-, but they understood that what we reported as the central facts of the story and there were new insights into the President's, were correct and to this day, by the way have not been denied which is always the test of whether-. They understood that on the documents, as I said once, I wish we had done it better. No excuses. Not a matter of we didn't have enough time or were crashing, no excuses. They get it. And that gives me a lot of hope. "I don't want this to sound like some sophomoric journalism but I really believe it inside that something is turning in the country when it comes to journalism. I think that people have begun to understand there are pressures on journalism. Again I'm not complaining about it. It goes with the territory. You have to be able to face the furnace and take the heat if you're any good at all. But the public's now beginning to understand that because a number of things have happened. This whole business of, get the picture, we have a reporter who didn't print a story in jail when somebody somewhere fairly high up had exposed an undercover intelligence agent, and is still running around, now, however that turns out, and wherever you stand, the public has a sense, you know, there's a lot that goes on when it comes to pressuring reporters, and a lot of games are played in there, and when a reporter handles a difficult story, when a reporter faces the furnace and says, 'okay, I'll take the heat,' the public understands it. Now, if you're wrong, they're going to nail you. You don't have to wait for the politicians or the political operatives to do it, the public will nail you and they'll nail you solid. But if you are out there every day trying to do a good job and you make a mistake, or it's a little unclear whether you made a mistake or not, they get it. I have more confidence in the audience today than I have ever had and part of it is because I think something is beginning to turn. People understand that many of the politicians in both parties and of all persuasions have gotten so good at what I call 'hidden hand pressure,' the public is waking up to it and if we're to have an increase in integrity-filled journalism it will start with the public demanding it."

# Kalb: "You've often used the word 'courage' in your broadcasts, why?"... Rather: "First of all, it was my father's favorite word. My mother's favorite word was meadow. Somewhere back in the, you know, catacombs of my mind as a child I know, God rest her soul, my mother's favorite word was meadow. She liked the ring of the word, she liked what it conjured up in her mind and what she hoped it would conjure up. And my father's favorite word was courage. Again he liked the strength of the word. He liked the definition of the word so it begins with that. That's part of it. The other is that I came to like the word a lot, sometimes saying it, giving my best chance to mount maybe just a wee, small part of it. But it was no big deal and I became convinced that it was not a good idea to end the broadcast with it when I made an effort to do so one time. But for you alone, and for you alone today only I'll reveal something to you: There's part of me, it says, you know, 'damn I wish I hadn't caved, I wish I'd stuck with it.'" Kalb: "Do you think your network showed courage last fall?" Rather, silent for seven seconds. Kalb: "Okay." Rather. "No, I don't want that silence to indicate an answer. I think that's something each person has to judge for themselves. I was then, and I have been ever since then, and I am now really proud to work at CBS News. I've been mightily blessed and really lucky. I like the people and, yes, I think there are all kinds of courageous people inside CBS News."

Holy moly! When he's without a script to read, Rather certainly can blather. In all that drivel, there's hardly a coherent thought or grammatically proper sentence to be found.

Not to mention that he's a pompous, self-righteous blowhard: "There are bloggers who have as much integrity as I, or the most integrity-filled people I know have..." (implied, "I am the most integrity-filled person I know, so my opinion should reign as fact"). What a maroon.

Funny how he keeps trying to defend the indefensible. I like Rand Simberg's observations as Mary Mapes tried to defend the authenticity of the fake memos: "My irony meter just shattered the glass, and bent its needle into a pretzel."

In most cases I feel sympathy and compassion for a person showing signs of dementia but in this case I'll make an exception. This guy is a LOSER big time and an idiot to boot.

This is the e-mail I sent buttboy Kalb...

You made a lot of glaring errors in your interview with Dan Rather.

Is this the level of accuracy that you teach your students?

Or is accuracy not as important as the message?

One supporting pillar of the story, albeit an important one, one supporting pillar was brought into question.

Nice try Dan.
Without the phony memos what you had was 5 years worth of trying to catch a puff of smoke.Nothing.
It was the story and it was fake.That makes the story fake.
To continue with this charade that the story has not been proven wrong does prove one thing,that Dan is a corrupt,dishonest,wreck of a man.

48 posted on 09/27/2005 6:08:05 PM PDT by No Longer Free State (No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, no action has just the intended effect.)

"they understood that what we reported as the central facts of the story and there were new insights into the President's, were correct and to this day, by the way have not been denied which is always the test of whether,"

No, Dan, that was the Clinton White House "test of whether" - how quickly Mike McCurry could get out there with an aggresive denial. What the Bush White House was practicing with regard to your fairy tale was the refusal to dignify a scurrilous charge with a response, a gentlemanly form of behavior that you would do well to study in your dotage. ;)

OK Dan, the story is true; so what?? Nobody cared anyway except a few whackos in the Stone Age Press. You think that what he did or didn't do when he was 20 something makes any difference whatsoever??? Go get a life you disgrace to your "profession".

Pray for W and Our Feedom Fighters

"And never more than what this last year has said to me that the public at large did not, as you put it, 'feast' on us. The public at large, they got it. They knew exactly what happened."

I love this part. Rather continues to look through the wrong end of the telescope. The public "got it" all right, Dan, and that's why CBS's ratings, never very high, dropped like a rock, you had to "retire," and Pres. Bush's National Guard service never, ever came up again.

A friend just sent me this link to a hilarious Rather "Guard Memo" parody:

http://www.joking.com/videos.asp?video=rather.swf

Why can't these people just enjoy their zillions of dollars quitely and envision their irrelevance however they like....but in silence?

Were I Rather, Streisand, Redford, Midler, Belafonte or any of dozens of other over-the-hills, I think I might learn to also retire my damned ego, become unrecognized and either vacation quietly and anonymously at fabulous resorts or maybe - just maybe - walk quietly amongst the 'little people' they apparently scorn.

Why can't these people just enjoy their zillions of dollars quitely and envision their irrelevance however they like....but in silence?

For the same reason that the Bent One can't keep his mouth shut - they can't stand the fact that they are no longer relevant.

When I was young, I wanted to be famous...which is a young person's misplaced belief that to be famous is to be loved and respected. Now, I just want to be rich, which is an old person's misplaced search for stability and predictability.

The people you mentioned had the fame and the money early...so they never grew up and still want to be loved and respected. There are lots of celebrities who have quietly gone on their way...even leftist ones. But every single one of them were grown ups. Johnny Carson comes to mind. Kathrine Hepburn comes to mind. There are lots more.

IMO, that is the difference.

I've come to believe that exposure to TV cameras makes you crazy (correlation proves causation!). Examples:
1. Dan Rather
2. Cindy Sheehan
3. Joe Scarborough
4. Bill O'Reilly

Let's face it. The bitter old fool will never admit that he was on a crusade to do to President Bush what he claims he did to Nixon.

The best thing that could happen to CBS now that Blather is being shoved off into the sunset is for Perky Katie Couric to get evening news anchor job. That would kill the news department and free up the time for something that would bring in a little revenue.

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.