Dan Rather's* Shell Game?

Prerequisite read the "Dan Rather's* Legacy" post.

First off, in defending the story and there being NO need to look any further into this issue, Dan Rather* stated a few days ago that HIS source for these documents was "unimpeachable." Now HIS source for these documents is admitting that he LIED about the documents. Is this the sort of source that Dan Rather* thinks is "unimpeachable?" Has Dan Rather* EVER stated that he had an anonymous, "unimpeachable" source before? Have those sources been as "unimpeachable" as this guy? Has Dan Rather* screwed up other stories with "unimpeachable" sources and never been questioned on them because documents were either real or less obvious forgeries? When a respected newsperson assures us that his source is unimpeachable... that source had better be just that.

So it appears that Dan Rather* and CBS News chose to answer the first question in the "Dan Rather's* Legacy" post with the fourth (least damaging legally) of the possibilities which I put forth last Friday about three days before Dan Rather* apologized. (You know, with the POOR "expert" advice that Dan Rather* and CBS News have been getting lately, I wonder if they used my post last Friday as the basis for the legal advice to choose the least damaging possibility put forth by me. Legal advice from me, a non-lawyer, would be no worse than the so-called document expert advice used in this report.) To refresh, it was "4) Dan Rather* really had no idea these were forgeries." And the consequences were listed as "If this, the least damaging "legally" of the options, is the truth, then there would be no intentional wrongdoing. However, what does it say to Dan Rather* and CBS's competence or lack thereof? If a relatively new reporter missed such obvious forgeries that's bad. If the anchor missed them that's worse. If the executive producer missed it, it is unbelievable incompetence." Out of curiosity, do YOU believe Dan Rather* to be an incompetent boob, or a shrewd experienced newsman?

As for the “unimpeachable” source…

In an ironic twist the self-impeached, "unimpeachable" source to which Dan Rather* referred, Bill Burkett, stated that he provided the documents and deliberately misled CBS to protect 'his' source. This is using the most damaging legally of the possibilities in my post "1) Worst case, Dan Rather*, or someone working on this story typed these forgeries to revive the story they had been working on for four years." The consequences listed as "I have heard rumors that the "real" documents are handwritten, or in some way would identify the source, and that CBS forged the typed documents to "protect" their source. If this were the case it would have been easy for Dan Rather* to have said that "These are retyped copies to protect our source." in the report. Then at worst Dan Rather* would be guilty of using inaccurate documents, but avoid the possibility of forgery charges. If this is true, Dan Rather*, and any other CBS people envolved should be prosecuted for forgery, and election tampering." As for the criminal charges, Dan Rather* has the freedom of the press to hide behind which makes criminal charges less likely. However, Bill Burkett is nothing more than a democratic advisor wannabe. Fraud and election tampering charges would be easy to file against him. Just as in the Sandy Berger stealing top secret government documents case I doubt that the Bush administration’s Justice Department will pursue charges so as not to be accused of abusing power to go after political adversaries. But ask yourself this. Who could his source be that he is willing to risk jail to protect? Or ask this. Is he smart enough to realize that he just admitted to a fraud used to effect an election?

As for the “unimpeachable” source’s motive…

Bill Burkett now says that in exchange for giving CBS the EXACT (forged) documents they needed to revive a four year old, otherwise dead story, CBS set up a phone call between Bill Burkett and a top Kerry aid. Is this standard operating procedure at CBS? How close a relationship does someone need with the Kerry campaign to call up and say, “Hey, I’ve got this guy who would like to talk with you. Could we set up a phone call?” then, Joe Lockhart, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign CALLED Bill Burkett! This they have admitted! Now according to CBS, this was accomplished without saying anything like, “The reason I want to set up this call is that in exchange for your calling this guy he will give CBS what it needs to damage your political opponent.” AND, they want you to believe that after using these (forged) documents as a bargaining chip to get an audience with Joe Lockhart, that Bill Burkett did not use this opportunity to say something like “Dude, I’ve got just what you need to get Kerry elected.” Instead, he does not mention these documents at all! I know that die-hard democrats will SAY they believe that load of crap, but is there ANYONE in the country REALLY gullible enough to believe this? (If you happen to know one of these people, let me know. I have this bridge in Brooklyn I’ve been trying to sell for quite a while.) How much collaboration does there have to be between a campaign and a so-called news organization to cause the campaign finance reform act to kick in and cause the CBS News to stop all broadcasts 30 days before the election?

As for the half apology from Dan Rather*… (Oh, you disagree? Read the following with an open mind to the truth.)

Dan Rather*, in his apology Monday, left the uninformed viewer with at least two MAJOR misconceptions. 1) He said that if they knew then what they know now the report would not have aired as it did, with the (forged) memos. A more accurate statement would have been the report would not have aired at all. These (forged) documents WERE the story. If the story could stand on its own, they could have aired it any time over the last four or so years. 2) He did not say that the documents were forged. He did not say that they might be forged. He did not say that HE doubted their authenticity. All he said was that since CBS does not know exactly where the documents came from, he could not vouch for their authenticity. (As if a vouch of authenticity from Dan Rather* and his “unimpeachable” source means anything.) By carefully wording the apology, Dan Rather* leads one to believe, and he has since outright stated, that Dan Rather* still believes these forged documents to be real. This will cause the two or three people in America who still place ANY faith in the word of Dan Rather* to believe the documents to be authentic. This also makes it a NON-APOLOGY. What Dan Rather* should have been apologizing for, and many, erroneously think he did apologize for, is using forged documents in his report. But what his word sculpting actually said is, “The documents are real. Trust me. Everyone else in the world is too stupid to understand the facts. Oh yeah, by the way, I am sorry about the way I got my hands on the ‘authentic’, ‘unimpeachable’ documents.”

So, if Dan Rather* truly had NO idea he was being duped, does CBS News not need to find someone more competent to anchor an executive produce the news?

* Dan Rather*, once respected reporter, news anchor and ABC news executive producer, left in humiliation after using forged documents to prop up a weak story that a first year journalism student would probably have known enough to pass on. It casts a shadow of doubt on all that Dan Rather* was involved in throughout his career.


Read more about it and…


About eight paragraphs down they get to the "innocent" phone call http://edition.cnn.com/2004/
ALLPOLITICS/09/21/cbs.kerry.adviser/index.html


Read about not admitting forgery. Rather Fails to Admit Forgery or Apologize for Impugning Critics --9/21/2004-- Media Research Center

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Dan Rather’s* Legacy

Within hours of the 60 minutes II report which included the now known to be forged memos about the president’s National Guard service the “new” media, aka the blogoshpere, was raising doubts about the authenticity of the documents used in the report. Within about 24 hours the preponderance of the evidence indicated forgeries. And in less than a week after the report, the secretary (from what I understand a Kerry supporter) placed the final nail in the coffin of this dead report stating that she did not type these, and giving the only two models of typewriters used in the office allowing experts to definitively state that these documents were not typed on either of these typewriters.

So, two questions remain. How is it that Dan Rather* now finds himself with so much egg on his face? And with most reasonable people convinced that the documents are forgeries why has Dan Rather* not admitted them to be at least “questionable” and begin to rebuild the pile of rubble formerly his reputation?

As to the first question, given that CBS had been working on this story for four years and had not run it due to not having any tangible “proof”, like memos, and due to the fact that after this election that four year investment of time and money is of no value at all, I see four possibilities listed in worst case for Dan Rather* and CBS news to best case for them. 1) Worst case, Dan Rather*, or someone working on this story typed these forgeries to revive the story they had been working on for four years. 2) In order to save four year's work Dan Rather*, knowingly, used forged documents in his report supplied to them by someone in or at least sympathetic to the Kerry campaign. 3) In order to save four years work Dan Rather* used documents of questionable origin in his report, but he felt the story “important” and “timely” enough that he turned a blind eye, thinking that they may get away with it. 4) Dan Rather* really had no idea these were forgeries.

1) I don't think this to be the case. I have heard rumors that the “real” documents are handwritten, or in some way would identify the source, and that CBS forged the typed documents to “protect” their source. If this were the case it would have been easy for Dan Rather* to have said that “These are retyped copies to protect our source.” in the report. Then at worst Dan Rather* would be guilty of using inaccurate documents, but avoid the possibility of forgery charges. If this is true, Dan Rather*, and any other CBS people envolved should be prosecuted for forgery, and election tampering.

2 This is a bit more plausible, though not likely. While the documents were probably directly or indirectly from the Kerry campaign or someone at least thinking they were doing Kerry a favor, it is a legacy-killing dagger for one of Dan Rather's* last reports to be found fraudulent. I cannot speak for Dan Rather*, but was I him; I would not want to risk THAT just to get my guy elected. If this is true, he should at least be prosecuted for election tampering.

3 I could most easily buy these last two. I would bet that over the years many tv news reporters and newspaper reporters have gone to “press” with “questionable” materials. Many times never being questioned, and even if found to be false, they can plead ignorant (though they really had suspicions) and print or broadcast a retraction. Dan Rather*, having been so long in the news, and perhaps having gotten away with some minor “questionable” reports in the past may have thought that his name on the report would keep questions to a minimum. This may have worked on other “usual” news outlets. However, the pressure from an increasingly LESS “unusual” news outlet has caused even the “usual” ones to ask questions. A new reporter trying to make a name for himself, could almost be forgiven the “streach”. An executive producer should certainly know better. And the anchor should be beyond reproach. If a reporter, an executive producer, and an anchor for one of the five biggest tv newscasts in the country did this he should at a minimum be fired, and given the implications to the election, perhaps election tampering charges are in order.

4 If this, the least damaging “legally” of the options, is the truth, then there would be no intentional wrongdoing. However, what does it say to Dan Rather* and CBS’s competence or lack thereof? If a relatively new reporter missed such obvious forgeries that's bad. If the anchor missed them that's worse. If the executive producer missed it, it is unbelievable incompetence.

As to the second question, I think that it is a combination of things. Obviously some of them depend on which of the above reasons is correct. However, it is safe to say that Dan Rather* is embarrassed. After all he was found to have produced a fraudulent news report. Either he knew it was, and he himself is a fraud, or he was duped by someone else. Either way, with his years of experience this is shameful. Obviously Dan Rather* does not want to be remembered as the guy who screwed up when the chips were down. His pride is certainly part of it.

Another part may be that if his reporting, right or wrong, influences the upcoming election he would prefer it influence it in the direction of his candidate. It is obvious that Dan Rather* will be voting Democratic. If he plays fast and loose with the facts in a report and it hurts President Bush, so be it. However, Dan Rather* may be willing to fall on the sword rather than allow a report that he thought would help his candidate get elected, backfire and end up hurting his candidate. One problem that Dan Rather* will have is that, with a month and a half to the election, his stonewalling may actually have that negative effect on his candidate he was trying to avoid.

As for the forged documents, since it only took a couple of hours for the amateurs to figure it out, what does it say about the so-called professionals? The professionals who had as much time as they wanted to look at the documents before going to air, since they could have waited a week, a month, a year to air this. But there was an urgency to get this out NOW. This urgency is due to the fact that this becomes a non-story the day after the election. How many other times have the press pushed forward on an “urgent” story with “questionable” evidence and gotten away with it? Do some in the press think they are above question? Does Dan Rather*?

Dan Rather*, a week after the majority of the country knew that these were forged documents said that if they are forged he wants to “break” the story. Dan, you were scooped on that story a week ago by those pajama wearing bloggers!

* Dan Rather*, once respected reporter, news anchor and ABC news executive producer, left in humiliation after using forged documents to prop up a weak story that a first year journalism student would probably have known enough to pass on. It casts a shadow of doubt on all that Dan Rather* was involved in throughout his career.


Read more about it at

ImageShack - Hosting :: 60minbusted.swf

then…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

A Rebut to Zell Miller

Senator Kerry and his people have stated and implied that Zell Miller impugned Senator Kerry’s honor by misstating Senator Kerry’s record. John Kerry can SO easily stop Zell Miller in his tracks. I have prepared the following press release for John Kerry to distribute, which speaks to EVERY point made by Senator Miller regarding Senator Kerry's record. All Senator Kerry needs to do is insert dates and resolution numbers where needed. Then state the following, TRUTHFULLY:

I, JOHN KERRY, have NEVER seen America as an occupier, not a liberator.

I, JOHN KERRY, believe with all my heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

I, JOHN KERRY, have NEVER thought that America is the problem, not the solution.

I, JOHN KERRY, never claimed that Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. I knew that it would not.

I, JOHN KERRY, never claimed that Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war. I knew that it would not.

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the B-1 bomber. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the B-2 bomber. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the F-14A Tomcat. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the Apache helicopter. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the F-15 Eagle. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the Patriot Missile. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the Aegis air-defense cruiser. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the Strategic Defense Initiative. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, never voted against the Trident missile. I voted for it on these dates… and these resolutions….(list dates and resolutions)

I, JOHN KERRY, want our U.S. forces armed with (insert a list of all of the above items which were voted for by Kerry)

I, JOHN KERRY, will NEVER under ANY circumstances allow the United Nations to keep the United States from using her military force when the need arises. And I have NEVER made statements to that effect.

I, JOHN KERRY, NEVER, as a war protester, blamed our military.

As a Senator, I, JOHN KERRY, NEVER voted to weaken our military.

I, JOHN KERRY, NEVER voted to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

Upon the release of this statement, assuming there are no falsehoods therein, John Kerry can start picking out furniture for the White House.

Read more about it Yahoo! News - Text of Zell Miller's Speech at RNC

then…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!