|
|
||
 |
 |
 |
Posted on 06/05/2002 10:07:37 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Larry King asked Dan Rather on Tuesday night about his insinuation, just before Memorial Day weekend, that Attorney General John Ashcroft started flying on private aircraft last summer because he had warnings about terrorist hijackings he decided to keep secret. Rather, however, refused to admit that he had irresponsibly hurled a reckless charge, conceding only that “I don't know what the story is” but, realizing his predicament, he noted: “When you're in a hole, you don't just keep digging.”
But Rather did as he tried to justify his specious charge: “The point I was trying to make was a larger one that it's time for us to be asking tough questions.” Rather insisted: “I thought then and believe now, it's a fair question.”
But there’s a big difference between a tough question and hurling a charge of such a serious breach of human caring as Rather did without a scintilla of evidence for his invective.
Below is the exchange on the June 4 Larry King Live on CNN followed by what Rather actually said on the May 22 and May 24 Imus in the Morning programs.
King opened a segment: “Now it's time to clear something up with Dan Rather. Our mutual friend Imus is involved here. You were on Imus' show.”
Rather showed his uncomfortableness as he joked: “Waiter, may I have my check, please? Check please.”
King recounted: “It all starts with the 'I-man.’ On Imus last month, you said just before September 11th, John Ashcroft started to fly private planes, that would indicate that somebody somewhere was pretty worried. Why wasn't it shared with the public? The Justice Department denounced it as irresponsible. Ashcroft came on this show last week and said the reason he was asked to fly private was there were some personal attacks against him, fears that they had, and so they asked him to fly private.
Rather falsely asserted: “I did not say that about him, that some of his people had attempted to do that.”
In fact, this is what Rather stated on the May 24 Imus in the Morning: “It probably would be better for him to spend a little less time trying to, you know, sully up my reputation in some way, cover his own backside, and a little more time in let’s get this thing straight.”
The “him” was quite clearly John Ashcroft.
Back to King, he wondered: “What's the story?”
Rather: “I don't know what the story is. That when you're in a hole, you don't just keep digging. So you'll recognize my answer is in that spirit. I want the make it very clear, I have great respect for the Attorney General. I did when he was a senator. I do now. I'm very sensitive to the challenge in front of him and how hard he's working to help protect our country.
“And I've made that clear right the way through. The point I was trying to make was a larger one that it's time for us to be asking tough questions. It is for the press and it is for the American public. In a system such as ours or a government such as ours, it is absolutely critical. Now, I had talked to a number of people and I have talked to a number of people who were raising this question with me. It didn't just come, you know, out of my head and nobody dropped it over the transom.
“That some of the survivors of victims of September 11 have raised the question -- look, the government, never mind they didn't connect the dots. But they knew some things were out there moving around, and why didn't you let us know? I tried to raise this point in what I thought was a responsible way. By the way, they've never told me that they thought it was irresponsible. I never heard that until you just read it.”
King: “That was the Justice Department.”
Rather: “I attempted to call the Attorney General. Was told by staff, no, you just call us and talk to us. That's the way that was handled. Never talked to him. There's a line of communication open with him. I don't have any argument with the Attorney General, and whatever he said, I take it face value and I accept that.
“The larger point is that we need to be asking tough questions. Now, one of the questions, if you feel and the public feels he's answered the question, then that's fine by me. That we now can look back and piece some things together, and that he says that it was a threat assessment against him and I accept that. And when he got that assessment, he took the information and was able to make some protective moves for himself. I thought then and believe now, it's a fair question not so much for Dan Rather to ask, but for others to ask and for me to reflect it, well, when there was a threat assessment on the public, was as good a job done as could have been done and should have been done in letting the public knowing and let them decide whether they want to fly commercial aircraft or not?
“But I have no argument with the Attorney General. I did say and I do believe that, look, it's time for all of us -- it is not about me. It's about him and I think he would agree it is about the country.”
It doesn’t help the country to have one of its most prominent TV journalists irresponsibly hurling baseless charges that could undermine the authority of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
Now, for what Rather said on the May 22 and May 24 editions of Imus in the Morning.
Appearing by phone on the May 22 Imus radio show simulcast on MSNBC, Rather charged:
“You can certainly give a new President the benefit of every doubt about what he knew. The, you know, the New York Post had this big headline, 'Bush Knew.' Well, you know, knew what? However, increasingly there are important questions that need to be asked, but again, until recently, I would say, until the last week, nobody was asking 'em.
“For example, the Attorney General of the United States before, just before September 11th, started inexplicably taking private aircraft to places where normally the Attorney General wouldn't take private aircraft, you know, government planes. Well, that would indicate that somebody somewhere was getting pretty worried, but if you're going to share that with the Attorney General, you know, why wasn't it shared with the public at large?”
Later in that show NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski had informed Imus that Ashcroft avoided commercial airlines in response to a threat on him personally.
In a follow up appearance on Friday, May 24, to answer complaints about his groundless charge, Rather repeated the underlying thrust of it: "Now, in other words, when the Attorney General heard a threat, it was decided that, immediately and expensively, he would be taken care of on a security front. Now, I'm okay with that. Now, what some people are asking, and this is what I reported on your program, and some of the people include the relatives of victims of September 11th. What they're asking is that, okay, then when there came threats about the American flying public, there were threats bubbling up all over the place, the public was not told about that and, therefore, could not make their own decisions about their security.”
For a complete rundown of what Rather spewed on May 24: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20020528.asp#2
The Dimocrats are in BIG trouble, and they know it! Otherwise, their Media toadies (like Dan Rather) wouldn't be resorting to these tactics.
have you read BIAS, by Bernie Goldburg, yet?
for dixie LIBERTY,sw
In Rather's world.......there is no logic other than, if it's a republican he must be evil.
Rather is a liar. A big liar, and a very small man, who won't ever admit the ugly truth. The truth is, Rather went on Imus last week and intentionally slimed John Ashcroft with a bald-faced lie, which was designed to portray Ashcroft as an evil man who let other Americans die while he protected himself.
You've done a great job of exposing Imus-deprived readers to the full extent of Dan Rather's partisanship.
Watching blathering Rather last night on LKL was like watching the wicked witch melt down in "Wiz of Oz".
Perhaps he will do yet more damage control on Imus to try to explain away his latest lie.
These three are well paid for what they do. Exactly WHAT is the criteria to become a network anchor? It clearly isn't being a newsperson.....a reporter.
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
I haven't watched Danny Blather for about a decade now.
The reason I stopped watching him about a decade ago, was even then he had a truth deficit and lied constantly to promote the Rat agenda. He was never happier when he was lying and spreading the Bravo Sierra Agenda except when he posed with his role model and mentor Fidel Castro!
Communists lie? Shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Define: "lie"
Define: "define"
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.