Posted on 06/21/2006 7:05:42 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
With Katie Couric lounging in the wings, Dan Rather is now expendable, and the suits at CBS News are squeezing him out of his last remaining gig on "60 Minutes." This has caused great distress for those who like their news to look like a long commercial for MoveOn.org, which is to say, the Dan Rather fan club.
CBS smiled politely as they pushed him away, but the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted an anonymous former CBS executive, who denounced the shove-off as "disgraceful. He's a legend. He gave his life to that company. Even though he made a big mistake, he did 43 years and 11 months' great work."
If Rather's that great, why didn't the executive have the courage to go on the record?
Rather had a Nixonian ending, resigning from the anchor chair in disgrace after being in complete denial about his own political corruption. It's not surprising that some will now try to rehabilitate his reputation, but they won't have much more luck than Nixon did. Rather does not have a sterling record of journalism. He is a grand example of the anchorman as a powerful and partisan national politician who never had to be elected, yet had a lot more visibility and wielded a lot more influence than most elected officials.
There is a rich irony here. It was that very zest for power -- in this case, a story that would have destroyed the re-election hopes of President George W. Bush -- that backfired and cost Rather his career.
The shameful "scoop" charged Bush with the surprisingly puny offense of missing some of his National Guard duty (yes, puny, compared to young Bill Clinton completely skipping out on the University of Arkansas ROTC.) Rather breathlessly delivered his "umimpeachable source," Bill Burkett, who turned out to be a Bush-hating fruitcake. He sent documents by fax, and the document examiners CBS hired warned they were inadequate at best, yet Rather went full steam ahead. It was not thorough or thoughtful journalism. It was not defensible. It was flat-out embarrassing, akin to Janet Cooke's non-existent 8-year-old heroin addict.
This was not the first time Rather tried to savage a member of the Bush family on national television. Rather's 1988 interview with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was another low point. After a hatchet-job taped piece on Iran-Contra leading into the interview, Rather bullied Bush, constantly interrupting him, suggesting that many Americans didn't believe his account of what he knew about the arms-for-hostages deal. Bush's haymaker punch of a response -- "If you want to rehash Iran-Contra as the only part of my career, how would you like your career defined by your pouty performance, walking off the set when tennis delayed your newscast?" -- was absolutely the most satisfying TV moment President Bush ever handed to conservatives.
If Rather was this tough on every president or potentate, we could accept that. But he wasn't. Rather secured two interviews with Saddam Hussein, both on the verge of his wars with the United States, one in 1990, one in 2003. In both of these interviews, Rather treated Saddam with extreme deference, like a world statesman. He asked in 1990 if Saddam thought Kuwait was "Vietnam in the sand for the United States." He sounded in 2003 like he and Saddam were on an airstrip in Casablanca: "Given the sober moment and the danger at hand, what are the chances this is the last time you and I will see each other?" Rather gained the access, and wasted it on his own vanity.
When it came to the Clintons, Rather was even more of a manicured poodle. In his first interview with President Clinton, on March 25, 1993, Rather began by asking if Clinton had a cold, then added: "I don't know anybody who knows you well who isn't worried about your lack of sleep. Even Mrs. Clinton recently mentioned it. How much do you sleep?" He did the same favor for Hillary that year, saying, "I don't know of anybody, friend or foe, who isn't impressed by your grasp of the details of this (health care) plan."
Rather secured the first post-impeachment interview with President Clinton in 1999, and it was peaches and cream again. There was no time for rough questions, for Juanita Broaddrick, or fundraising from Chinese nationals. Rather began by asking if Clinton knew the duties of the husband of a U.S. senator. When he arrived at the impeachment questions, Rather asked: "We're here in a room with pictures of Lincoln, Washington, Continental Congress. When you look back over this year plus, what's the moral of it? Does it have a moral?"
There is a tragic component in thinking about this. After 43 years and 11 months in the national spotlight, Rather is leaving, and won't be missed.
On the day the report aired Rather had copies of the Documents presented to the White House with a request for comment. When the white house had not replied by late afternoon Rather contacted the White House and asked for a comment on the Documents. Rather was told the White House had "No Comment".
At about the same time the White House put the Documents on the White House web site for all to see.
Why?
For those fake documents to make it to the White House web site two things must be true. Some one very high up... the president most likely.... had to approve putting those documents on the web site. If Rove or the President thought for one half second that the documents were true and accurate they would NEVER have put them on the White House web site. The conclusion is the White HOuse knew the information contained in the documents was false and the Documents were fake.
Why then did the White House tell Rather,"No Comment"?
Anyone who had been around Washington more than a half hour would know that Rather would interpret a White House "No Comment" as an admission of guilt. Even when politicians are guilty they still challenge any and all evidence.
Rather had to assume that if the information in the documents was false then the Bush white house would have screamed that information in the documents was false.
Rather reasoned that even if the documents were fake, the information they contained had to be true.. other wise Bush would have shouted the documents are false at the top of his lungs. "No comment" to Rather meant Bush is guilty. And that was enough for Rather to bet his career on those fake documents.
The President had to know that what was contained in the documents was untrue. It is very likely that in about the same time it took Buckhead to determine the documents were fake, the White house knew they were fake.
Then why the no comment and why put the documents on the White House web site?
It seems to me that when the documents were shown to Bush and Rove, they decided to use them to take Rather down. Rove certainly had studied all the network anchors. He had to know that if they waited until Rather contacted them and then said "No Comment", Rather would bet his career that the documents were at worst "fake but accurate". Rather could not believe that the Bush White House would say "No Comment" if the documents were "Fake and Lies".
Putting the Documents on the web was an attempt to make it easy for someone other than the White House to prove the documents were fake. If no Buckhead had come forward, I think the white house was prepared to prove the documents were fake and the contents lies.
But that "No Comment" comment would insure that Rather would believe that even if the documents were fake the contents were the truth.
I think Rather Got BUSHwhacked.. big time. I think it took a long time for Rather to find out he had been BUSHwhacked, The CBS suits suspected, but Rather do doubt lied to them.. Rather I think told them he had iron clad proof that Bush was guilty as charged. The Iron clad proof was the White House "No Comment". So the suits let Rather play out his Fake but Accurate ploy.
When at last the Suits were certain of the truth they had to know that Bush And Rove had Bushwhacked not only Rather but CBS.
Rather had to go. And the whole world had to be made aware that Rather had been fired.
The word BUSHwhacked has to be burned into Rather's brain.
But I have one other thing to say. Reagan told the world that Peggy Noonan wrote his speeches. But since leaving the White House Peggy has never been able to write as well as she did when she wrote for Reagan. Yet Reagan even when announcing he had Alzheimer's, wrote just as well as Peggy did when she was given credit for "writing" Reagan's speeches.
Don't be surprised if once Rove stops working for President Bush, he never again reaches the level of expertise he shows when working for Bush. And don't be surprised if Bush in th future is just as good a strategist as he was when Rove was getting all the credit.
I think Rather got into a contest with President Bush and got BUSHwacked .... big time.
Well said, mate!
LOL!! Thank you! The first time I read it, I thought the title actually said that. (Wishful thinking, I guess...)
I'm ashamed to actually be related to Dan Rather. Fortunately, it's by a marriage that has long since been disolved. It's a shame, because his brother was a REALLY nice guy, but was killed in an accident many years ago. The world would be a better place had he been spared, and Dan been in that car.
But perky, commie Katie will be so much better.
Dan Rather isn't in history, he's history like a footnote. In the 1960's, I remember watching the Democratic and Republican conventions (1968) - I remember HHH and McCarthy, and Mayor of Chicago guy, and Nixon, and Reagan (signs thrown in the garbage), and so many others. At that time, there were "big name" anchors on ABC, NBC, CBS - I remember the faces of these famous people, but now their names are fading. Sure, 100 years from now their faces in black and white will be played for some history lesson, but no one will really know, or care, about their names. It will be the larger picture that will be the point of the lesson. Whoever holds power at that time, be it the people or some dictator or such, they will determine the lesson ... hopefully the lesson will be a reminder of how the media lied and twisted to support primate ideas such as socialism, as propagandists for these ideas and enemies of Democracy. But no one will know their names. They won't know Danny boy either. In fact, I am already forgetting him. Dan Rather is history. As in done history, as in dust bin.
Don't you mean, Dan Rather IS history?
Good analysis and I agree, CT. Of course, the WH didn't have to lift a finger, even when gunga dan went deep into shark-infested waters. The Pajamahideen took care of everything.
Oh, yeah... am I the only one to notice how deeply the MSM has buried the kerry campaign connection to rathergate?
I am still amazed at Rather's apparently genuine belief that he was unbiased. He would have done splendid commentary on the quality of the Emperor's New Clothes. Hold up four fingers, Dan would have described five with perfect sincerity, before tossing in a wacky Texas simile and smiling engagingly. He is not sane.
They may have burried it from us, but not from themselves. Kerry saw to it that the media will take care before it buys what a democratic campaign puts out again.
One big advantage a Democratic campaign had, was it could feed the press accusations about Republicans and the media would go with it. Because in the past there had always been a plausable grain of truth in the accusation.
This time it turned out to be fake and a lie. From now on the media will not be sure that what a democrats feeds them is not a fake and a lie.
It will be harder for Democrats to use the media to trash Republicans. No one in the media wants to be the next Dan Rather.
They would like to go with the crap the Democrats feed them but for a while many in the media will fear to go with it on the Democrat campaign's word. Kerry managed to screw future Democrat candidates. That is not lost on other Democratic candidates.
Thanks for the ping!
Personally, I don't think cbs has any scruples at all about lying or about defaming a public figure or about interfering in a federal election. I think they've always done this, deliberately and knowingly. IMO, they just couldn't believe that they'd ever get caught and exposed -- much less by "a bunch of guys in pajamas."
I suspect you will be right. Couric is as rabid a rodent as Dano ever was.
Left out of the discussion by the old media is the plain fact that CBS attempted to remove a sitting President. A bunch of wild eyed moveon socialists decided that their opinion should trump that of the electorate.
They knew their evidence was false, but when you are the tip of the spear of the vanguard any tactic to bring down an evil Republican is "moral".
It is actually a sad story and it is one of the few stories about Dan that make me feely sorry for him.
The assault was pretty serious and Dan got beat up pretty badly. No one (well almost no one) deserves that kind of beating, even a liberal narcissist.
"The assault was pretty serious and Dan got beat up pretty badly. No one (well almost no one) deserves that kind of beating, even a liberal narcissist."
I agree.
That was a dastardly attack.
Rather kissing butt with every despicable dictator he could find was only equaled by Barbara WaWa doing a kiss butt interview with Castro in Cuba. Why MSM people love the bad boys is creepy in it's whipped up sexual overtones. (no pun intended - well, maybe some)
I would bet some suits at CBS are nervous.
If some audience does not go away when you leave, the audience will not show up when you appear.
Perky Katie had initial success becuase she was the first of the news babes. Sad to say but old news babes don't fare well in the TV world.
Another suck-up comment, when Dan and Connie were co-anchors: "If Connie and I could be half as good together as you and Hillary are, we'd take it right there and go home."
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.