[2ndDivisionVet]

No wonder the New York Times is sinking into oblivion.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ping!

[JennysCool]

Mr. Rather has spent more than $2 million of his own money on the suit.

Attention Nigerian scammers! Here's your man!

[TruthWillWin]

....showing that network executives used Republican operatives to vet the names of potential members of a panel....

Sounds fair to me considering Ra^ther used only leftist Dems to vet his TANG story featuring a forged document from a non-existing Lucy Ramirez.

[kidd]

Among the materials that money has shaken free for Mr. Rather are internal CBS memorandums turned over to his lawyers...

I found this sentence to be truly amusing.

[FrankR]

Meanwhile, Me and thousands of other Americans sit here with no job, struggling to keep their house and food on the table, and Mr. Rather has millions to blow on his defense...which will prove nothing except ego gratification (if he wins).

All I read about lately is millions and billions of dollars being squandered, while I sell everything that's not tied down on Craigs list and eBay to pay my car insurance.

Duck Fan Rather

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“his assertion that CBS intended its investigation, at least in part, to quell Republican criticism of the network.”
Nothin’ wrong with that either!

[WOSG]

Dan Rather and Mary Mapes engaged in fraud, deceit, journalistic malpractice, and was party to vouching for a forgery.

And the New York Times failed to mention any of that. Pathetic way to report on this. They are ... Rather Biased!

[Islander7]

“.....Using tools unavailable to him as a reporter — including the power of subpoena and the threat of punishment against witnesses who lie under oath....”

What!? These are ‘tools’ available to reporters? Who ever wrote this mess needs an education, quick.

[Jacquerie]

Spin, deflection or ignoring news are accepted.

The Dan, in his position as an esteemed (in his mind) member of the fourth estate, was an accessory in an attempt to bring down a sitting President with 100% fabricated documents.

His caper was very close to a coup d’etat. He belongs in history books ahead of Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose.

[weegee]

Using tools unavailable to him as a reporter — including the power of subpoena and the threat of punishment against witnesses who lie under oath — he has unearthed evidence that would seem to support his assertion that CBS intended its investigation, at least in part, to quell Republican criticism of the network.

Get Mr. Rather under oath and have him fess up as to just how the documents came to him and how much collusion there was with the Democrat party to obtain them.

[OldNavyVet]

With my apologies to Lewis Carroll ...

The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things: of gold -- and oil -- and tankers –-
Of forgeries -- and anchors --.
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have bankers.

[weegee]

Mr. Rather attracted the ire of Republican bloggers and talk radio in particular after the segment, which was broadcast on a weekday edition of “60 Minutes” in September 2004. It purported to have unearthed evidence about favorable treatment extended to President Bush during his Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard.

The network eventually responded to its critics by saying it could no longer vouch for the authenticity of the documents on which the report had been based.

There is no document to authenticate. it is a computer fabrication. NO hand typed letter exists. No hand signed later exists. It was done in MS Word and the photographed signature was pasted onto the forgery.

[dead]

CBS intended its investigation, at least in part, to quell Republican criticism of the network

What a dopey contention.

CBS was responding to criticism of the story. Naturally, since the story was about a Republican, the criticism was coming from Republicans.

If there was criticism of a negative story about Greenpeace, one would expect that the most vocal criticism would be from Greenpeace. If the story featured obviously forged documents slamming Greenpeace, CBS would likely fire people, in part because of the criticism from Greenpeace that forced them to investigate in the first place.