Rather’s Lawsuit Shows Role of G.O.P. in Inquiry

[deminks]

Source: New York Times

When Dan Rather filed suit against CBS 14 months ago — claiming, among other things, that his former employer had commissioned a politically biased investigation into his work on a “60 Minutes” segment about President Bush’s National Guard service — the network predicted the quick and favorable dismissal of the case, which it derided as “old news.”

So far, Mr. Rather has spent more than $2 million of his own money on the suit. And according to documents filed recently in court, he may be getting something for his money.

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.

Among the materials that money has shaken free for Mr. Rather are internal CBS memorandums turned over to his lawyers, showing that network executives used Republican operatives to vet the names of potential members of a panel that had been billed as independent and charged with investigating the “60 Minutes” segment.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/media/17rath...

---

You do have to register to see this article, but it is free.

[Judi Lynn]

1. Unbelievable an established network would stoop this low! From the NY Times article:

~snip~

Some of the documents unearthed by his investigation include notes taken at the time by Linda Mason, a vice president of CBS News. According to her notes, one potential panel member, Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, was deemed a less-than-ideal candidate over fears by some that he would not “mollify the right.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Thornburgh, who served as attorney general for both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, was named a panelist by CBS, but only after a CBS lobbyist “did some other testing,” in which she was told, according to Ms. Mason’s notes, “T comes back with high marks from G.O.P.”

Another memorandum turned over to Mr. Rather’s lawyers by CBS was a long typed list of conservative commentators apparently receiving some preliminary consideration as panel members, including Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan. At the bottom of that list, someone had scribbled “Roger Ailes,” the founder of Fox News.

[aquart]

8. CBS management needs to step down.

Preferably into a deep pit.

[xxqqqzme]

53. putting couric in the anchor spot

is becoming clear.

[Phred42]

54. See BS

[Qutzupalotl]

79. OMFG

Another memorandum turned over to Mr. Rather’s lawyers by CBS was a long typed list of conservative commentators apparently receiving some preliminary consideration as panel members, including Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan. At the bottom of that list, someone had scribbled “Roger Ailes,” the founder of Fox News.

[No Elephants]

103. Limbaugh? Coulter? Ailes? That says it all. Judgment for the Plaintiff.

[NJCher]

123. that is the point where I

...would have been bashing my head against the door or breaking down in tears, one of the two. Rush Limbaugh! His ilk, investigating a journalist the calibre of Rather. As bad as the Soviets!!

The only thing that saved me from my head bashing et al is the Obama win.

And the fact that the GOP is on the skids.

Now, on another point, Rather is a true hero. He is using his own money to correct journalism. If he wins, I think it is possible for the court to award him his court costs and lawyer's fees.




Cher

[Bernardo de La Paz]

88. Shove this in their faces everytime wingnuts claim that Libruls control the MainStream Media.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. K&R!

[JDPriestly]

3. Whether he wins or loses the case, Rather has won a victory in the court of history.

Clearly, CBS fired him and discredited him to "mollify" the Republicans. The firing of Rather was a political vendetta. CBS did not carry out a legitimate, fair investigation of the merits of Rather's report or of Rather's diligence in preparing the report. And I will bet you that every word in the report was true and that the document that Rather presented was either the original document or a file copy of the original document regarding Bush's service record.

Knowing how things worked back in the day, it is possible that the document Rather got was a typed copy (as opposed to a carbon copy) of the original document. The typed copy may have escaped destruction by the Bushies.

It was not unusual to take a carbon of an original and retype it in order to share a document with a third party or to preserve a copy of it in another file. Copy machines were not as common back then. As for the signature. The copy of the copy )or of the original) might have also been signed by the original author/signator of the document. I worked as an office manager of a business in the early mid-60s. Someone in the office in which the original was prepared may have made a copy for his/her own file.

[annabanana]

34. (he wasn't fired in the mid sixties - It was 2005)

carbon paper was already a dim memory..

[BlueJazz]

36. I think JD was talking about the copy of Bush's bullshit.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

57. hey, even email uses CC, or Carbon Copy, in its 'reply to' header.

I'm just sayin

[TroglodyteScholar]

80. I believe that's "courtesy copy"

[BlancheSplanchnik]

81. Oh---ok, that makes sense too

[No Elephants]

105. Not according to wiki. Wiki says it's carbon carbon (cc) and blind carbon copy (bcc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_copy

[CAcyclist]

63. JD was referring to the RNC claims of fraudulent documents

in the investigative piece that Rather was let go over, not when he was fired.

[jhrobbins]

78. You're funny!

[JDPriestly]

135. I was referring to the practices in offices in the 60s which

is when the memo that Republicans claimed was counterfeit was allegedly prepared. You need to wake up before you post. We all make mistakes, of course, so I forgive you for the vacant minded comment. It's kind of funny.

[jellen]

58. Rather

Maybe off the subject a little, but this word "vet", I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. It sure has crept into our everyday language. I'll bet it is one of those new words that the dictionaries hilite every new year.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. It's actually over 100 years old, in that usage

It's already in Merriam Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vet%5B2%5D

And the Oxford English Dictionary gives, as usage:

3. To examine carefully and critically for deficiencies or errors; spec. to investigate the suitability of (a person) for a post that requires loyalty and trustworthiness.

1904 KIPLING Traffics & Discov. 270 These are our crowd... They've been vetted, an' we're putting 'em through their paces. 1924 H. A. VACHELL Quinney's Adventures 267 Shelagh ‘vetted’ Dolan's brogue, and passed it as sound enough for an Irish-American. 1925 E. F. NORTON Fight for Everest: 1924 III. vi. 338 He should have all equipment..completely ready three or four months before shipment{em}only thus can everything be properly ‘vetted’ and criticized. 1938 G. ARTHUR Not Worth Reading viii. 110 The official in Pall Mall..who ‘vetted’ us..swallowed without a gulp some rather mendacious replies as to one's technical knowledge of the various parts of a Canadian boat. 1947 E. WAUGH Let. 29 May (1980) 251 The romantic castle was condemned by the architect I sent to vet it, as moribund. 1959 DUKE OF BEDFORD Silver-Plated Spoon vi. 128 We went through an awful period while Brownie was ‘vetted’ at a series of interviews with relations, each more embarrassing than the last. 1978 G. GREENE Human Factor II. i. 63 HQ had her vetted.

[JDPriestly]

136. It's probably a shortened version of investigated.

The English, especially in certain parts of London will even used rhyming words to substitute for actual words. I guess they are allowed to do that since they invented the language. It is strange, I agree. But vet is a lot quicker and easier to spell than investigate.

[Turbineguy]

60. As I recall

the original letter about Bush went missing from the files after his records were gone over to eliminate damaging material. The re-typed letter was typed by the Secretary who did the original to the best of her recollection. This was the letter that got Rather in trouble. He seems to have left out the providence of the letter. Its providence was never a secret, nor was it intended to be.

[petersjo02]

71. I think you mean "provenance" rather than "providence."

provenance ( ) n. Place of origin; derivation. The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated

[Turbineguy]

72. Thanks, yes

English is a second language. That's my excuse.

Lame excuse, but it's all I've got.

[No Elephants]

104. Supposedly, the margins were justified. And, supposedly, a blogger noticed this and exposed the

the report. (I don't believe that, but who knows.)

After that, though, Rather had on his show the secretary of a military figure who was important in terms of the report. Maybe she was even the secretary who had typed the original report I am not sure. She basically vouched for everything said in the report.

[Hekate]

4. KnR. CBS tried to make itself into a friendlier version of a wholly-owned propaganda organ...

... for the Republican Party. How could they have sunk so low?

Hekate

[Dinger]

5. Go All The Way Dan!

I wonder why the M$M hasn't reported on this? (TV)

[chelsea0011]

31. MSM was hoping for a slow death, but they are up against someone

who is still a true blue reporter.

[trueblue2007]

74. main street media is on the side of CBS and not the TRUTH as reported by Dan Rather -- K&R !!!

[Mari333]

6. the wheels of the truth gods grind slowly

but they grind exceedingly well...
kick

[calimary]

83. Mari!!! Happy to see your post again!

[Danascot]

7. Related Thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[creeksneakers2]

9. The panel was chosen to cover up Bush's role

in the airing of the false report. Bush and Dan Bartlett knew the documents were forged. They didn't tell CBS that, knowing CBS would broadcast the false report and be subject to a right wing uproar. The Bushes always wanted to take out Rather and they got him.

The truth of what happened never gets serious attention, partly because the left wants to believe Rather and his original report. Overwhelming evidence of forgery was there from the start. The documents contained information that was obviously false. Bartlett admits he questioned Bush the morning before the 60 Minutes segment ran. Bartlett admits Bush told him information in the documents was false. If the information was false, then the documents had to be forgeries. So Bush and Bartlett knew, but contrived the plan to let Rather swallow the hook.

If Republicans had a hand in choosing the investigative panel, they surely watched to make sure the White House's role in the false report was never investigated. The investigative panel report stated that the White House had no duty to inform CBS the documents were forgeries and that the information was false. The investigative panel decided not to spend one second investigating the White House role based on that theory.

Its a terrible theory. The White House has a duty to inform the public and that includes waiving off investigative reporters from bad stories. An investigative reporter is in a tough position. The same target the reporter wants to harm must be counted on to act as a check against false information supplied by other sources. Without the cooperation of the target, the investigative reporter has no way to verify what he's told by outside sources. Bush and the White House were well aware of this, and they sent the signal to the rest of the press that using sources to go after Bush risked an ended career. The investigative panel was aware of the dilemma Bush created for CBS and journalists everywhere, but still instantly concluded the White House had no duty to waive CBS off the bogus account. This shows me the fix was in.

Rather is in it now for his own ego and reputation. I don't expect his suit to produce anything of value. Rather still insists the Bush guard story is true. That lets Bush and his White House off the hook for the real wrongdoing.

[defendandprotect]

11. Nonsense ... this report was verified by the female military aide who confirmed...

the info in the documents, but not the specific documents --

Additionally the nonsense about the documents being "forged" based on

typewriters of the time is also b.s. -- many of us are familiar with those

typewriters.

This was another "Terri Shaivo/Swiftboating" -- all based on lies.

However, yes, this Bush crime family is greatly powerful in a thug-like,

violent way -- their enemies quickly eliminated.

Of course the Bush AWOL story is true --

Meanwhile, all of this makes it easier for citizens to "get" that there is not

even a hint of a free press left --

"The myth of a free press died with the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy..."

[creeksneakers2]

67. The secretary didn't verify the information in the documents

She only verified that favoritism was common in the guard back then. She also said the documents couldn't have come from the National Guard office she worked in. That's very strong evidence the documents were forged. I followed the typewriter issue and the best Rather's backers came up with was that there was a $20,000 typewriter available at the time that print shops used. Its absurd to think the National Guard office had one. What's more, even with that typewriter an exact replica couldn't be produced. The documents do match word processing programs in common use now.

I agree with you that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. That was well known before the 60 Minutes story aired.

[defendandprotect]

70. No -- she verified it word-for-word ...stressed exactly what she had typed --

only this wasn't her work ---

She said nothing about docs other than she didn't type them ...

but were accurate as to info she typed ...

B.S. on the typewriter .. we all used executive IBM's and special IBM type --

That's all you needed to produce those docs .. no word processor required ..

And, we also know we had a rigged investigation of ALL of this --

And, yes, Rather simply brought back a true story ...

[creeksneakers2]

87. Upon further rereading

I confused the typist, with two other former guard officers who were used as witnesses in the 60 Minute II original report. One was a Lieutenant Robert Strong who knew Lieutenant Colonel Killian (the officer who supposedly wrote the memos) but did not work in the same location with him. Strong also left the guard a year before the events in the memos took place. The other officer was a Colonel David Hackworth, who was even further removed from first hand knowledge of what transpired. Both men could not testify to anything other than their impressions that the guard in general conducted business in the way alleged with the memos.

Killian's assistant,Marian Carr Knox told CBS News that the documents they had were not authentic. She pointed out that abbreviations and terms from the documents were not used by the guard at that time. Its interesting that so many here insist that Knox was right when she confirmed facts pointed out in the documents, while at the same time her statements that the documents weren't authentic are ignored. "No evidence at all of forgery" is written in several posts here. One piece out of the mountain of evidence is the statement of Marian Carr Knox that the documents were forged
.


RATHER: These memos were not memos that you typed and you don't think they came directly out of his files?

KNOX: The information, yes. It seems that somebody did see those memos, and then tried to reproduce and maybe changed them enough so that he wouldn't get in trouble over it.RATHER: I understand.

KNOX: Could deny it.

RATHER: I understand.

KNOX: That's all just supposition.


Knox went on to confirm elements of the CBS story, such as that the Lieutenant Colonel Killian was displeased with Bush, although she is the only one who states that among all the witnesses. Documents from the time record Killian and other approving of Bush.


Knox said Bush received orders to take his physical, but the other officers from the guard said orders were never sent to take physicals. And the dates of the order from the 60 Minutes documents conflict with the time Bush was actually due for a physical.

Knox told CBS that Killian felt pressured by General Staudt to sugar coat Bush's record. General Staudt retired from the service one year before the time in question.

She told CBS that Killian kept his own CYA files but that is contradicted by Killian's wife and son.

According to the investigative panel set up by CBS, when Knox was interviewed before the panel she denied all of this and said she had no direct knowledge about Bush.

Best transcript I could find was from a Freeper site, with Freeper annotations. I believe its an accurate transcript though, as it matches up very well with a recap of the interview posted on the CBS News website.

http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2004/09/60-minutes-...

[defendandprotect]

100. No--

Killian's assistant,Marian Carr Knox told CBS News that the documents they had were not authentic. She pointed out that abbreviations and terms from the documents were not used by the guard at that time. Its interesting that so many here insist that Knox was right when she confirmed facts pointed out in the documents, while at the same time her statements that the documents weren't authentic are ignored. "No evidence at all of forgery" is written in several posts here. One piece out of the mountain of evidence is the statement of Marian Carr Knox that the documents were forged

The aide/secretary related no problems with the "abbreviations and terms" --

Again, she did NOT say "documents not authentic" ...

She said "word-for-word" what she had typed - but that these were not her product.


And, here's your final clue to intimidation ...

According to the investigative panel set up by CBS, when Knox was interviewed before the panel she denied all of this and said she had no direct knowledge about Bush.

[No Elephants]

107. It's not interesting that we focus on her statement that the facts in the documents were true while

ignoring her statement that the documents were not authentic. A guy who was running for President was a deserter. That is the salient fact. The inauthenticity of the documents is nothing but a distraction from that stark truth.

[defendandprotect]

139. No...She did NOT say that the dicuments were "not authentic" ....

She said she didn't produce them ....

but info was accurate as to what she had typed --

And as another poster is telling you ...

She SPECIFICALLY STATED what was IN the documents was ACCURATE, but SHE didn't type them.

[blm]

76. She SPECIFICALLY STATED what was IN the documents was ACCURATE, but SHE didn't type them.

.

[creeksneakers2]

89. Please see response #87

[ooglymoogly]

85. What a bonch of booolcheeet...nt

[stevenleser]

90. Yes, she did, here is a link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/p...

Last Tuesday, doubts about the documents' authenticity grew when Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, told The Dallas Morning News that she didn't type them and that the papers appeared to be fakes.

She repeated the account on CBS the next day. But she said in an interview with USA TODAY that Killian had written similar memos, which she had typed, and kept them in a locked drawer in his office at Ellington Air Force Base. Killian, a stickler for rules, was having trouble keeping Bush in line, she said.

[No Elephants]

106. I saw that show and she most certainly did verify the contents of the documents in every

particular. Someone may have re-typed an old document rather than steal it. But, regardless of how the document came to be, its contents were true. That was all that mattered. The typewriter vs. word processor issue was a distraction from the truth of the facts states.

[Raster]

121. Yes. The "not the typewriter" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.

We should be focusing on the CONTENT.

[creeksneakers2]

125. When we look at content

we have to decide if the content of the documents is true. Since the documents were forged, they provide no evidence to the veracity of the facts in them. If we proceed from there to look at other evidence, we have the word of Marian Carr Knox against everybody else involved. I've pointed out several reasons why Knox isn't reliable.

The theories of those on Rather's side grow more far fetched with each new piece of evidence. We are already on a far fetched story that somebody saw real documents, reforged them years later and passed them through a secret agent to Bill Burkett, who had no idea where he got them from and lied about their origin the first time.

[4bucksagallon]

132. Hmmmmmmm

http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ki/killian_documents.htm

CBS located and interviewed Marian Carr Knox, who was a secretary at Ellington Air Force from 1956 to 1979, and Colonel Killian's assistant on the dates of the memos. According to Knox, she did not type the memos and the memos were not written by Killian, though she believed they reflected the truth about Lieutenant Bush. She also stated she had no first hand knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard. Referring to the disputed memos, Knox commented "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said. "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."

[McCamy Taylor]

18. No silly, the report was true. An Atlanta lawyer named Harry MacDougald

was assigned to go online at the Free Republic minutes after the 60 Minutes episode aired as "Buckhead" and present himself as a typewriter expert. Using faxed copies of the documents in question, he insisted that they could not have been made on the typewriter. However, as Mary Mapes shows in her book, faxing changes the appearance of the typing as any real computer expert would know making it impossible to judge the authenticity of a document from a fax. However, MacDougald was not an expert. He was a Republican trouble maker. Other trouble makers picked up the story. CBS responded on cue. Instead of backing up their ace reporter, they nailed him to a cross.

The substance of the story---indeed the substance of the memos---was 100% true. And to this day no expert has proven that the documents themselves are forgeries.

A big question is how did MacDougald get his hands on faxes of the CBS documents before the show aired? I have always suspected that the DOJ or the NSA had CBS wiretapped (the way they had Eliot Spitzer wiretapped) and that was how they got copies of faxes of the documents. And their experts told them Sorry, we can not comment on faxes And so they had MacDougald lie.

Since 60 Minutes did the Abu Ghraib story it would be easy for the NSA to pretend that it had a vital national security interest in wiretapping Rather's team.

Part of Rather's purpose in suing CBS is to make this story a bestseller and then a blockbuster movie. He does not need money from CBS. But a film that shows Moonves looking like a horse's ass and Redstone looking like two horses' asses----that will be priceless. For such a film to work, Rather has to go on the offensive. Does not matter how the court case turns out. You have to have some kind of show down at the end of the film. Like a shoot out in a western. If this case gets to court, Rather has won and CBS has lost.

[w4rma]

23. That is exactly how this will pan out. (nt)

[mojowork_n]

68. Harry MacDougald claimed he downloaded pdf's

from the CBS website, immediately after the program aired:

http://coletti.co.uk/?p=41

But when I looked online, for those same original pdf's, I couldn't find a link.

I'm sure you're right, though -- this was like an online Brooks Brothers Riot -- a staged event, albeit one with fairly decent production values:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-20...

If someone does end up turning 'Rathergate' into a film, I hope they won't forget to give a little camera time to a few of the other Republican "Greatest Hits".

Another good one was the author of the book, "Fortunate Son."

Karl Rove, himself, was the source for many of the embarassing disclosures in that one. But the tactical strategy was sound enough. When the book was released in 2000, all Rove had to do to discredit the book was to point to the author's criminal history -- which he'd known about all along, but ignored while it was convenient, for the purpose of creating a "straw man," to be sacrified later.

In October 1999, St. Martin's Press, the publisher of "Fortunate Son," recalled 70,000 copies, and left another 20,000 in storage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortunate_Son_ (Hatfield)

A year and a half later, the author of the book was dead, the alleged victim of a prescription drug overdose/suicide.

[No Elephants]

108. Just like the authencity of the documents in Rather's hands was a straw man. That is why I have

always believed that the documents were planted with Rather's team.

[Delphinus]

118. OMG! I had no idea.

His karma's got to be shit! ALL their karma's got to be shit! It boggles my mind what lows they will sink to for power and control.

[gulfcoastliberal]

73. Seems like a typical Rove-orchestrated operation: the talking points, the orders when & where

their operatives should "leak" their bullshit manufactured "proof" & story used to discredit Rather. I wonder if Rove & W also use Yahoo email like Palin? I've seen GHWB + nasty Barbara Bush both quoted saying something along the lines that GW Bush & co. policy dictated avoiding using both their official gov't-issued email addresses & the WH email system. Perhaps this is why CBS is so desperate to keep Rather's side from seeing those thousands & thousands of documents & emails?:

The day after Election Day, the two sides squared off in Judge Gammerman’s courtroom in State Supreme Court in Manhattan over a request by Mr. Rather’s lawyers, led by Martin R. Gold of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, to gain access to several thousand documents that were used by the investigative panel to compile its report, including notes from interviews and e-mail messages from top executives.

Lawyers representing the panel have resisted Mr. Rather’s request for documents, citing attorney-client privilege. At the same time, CBS suggested in its latest filing that Mr. Rather was engaging “in nothing more than an intrusive and expensive fishing expedition.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/media/17rath...

I think that obviously the major anomalies found in the "official" account of GW's TANG service history were certainly consistent with the conclusions and evidence presented in Rather's special report. I really hope this suit exposes how the top levels of CBS, the GOP (& its operatives), & the Bush WH all conspired against Rather. I really hope the judge approves Rather's lawyers request to get those docs they requested - otherwise they will permanently disappear.

I simply cannot wait for the book once this ends.

[No Elephants]

109. The conspiracy was against Kerry and the American voter. Rather was collateral damage.

[creeksneakers2]

92. Most of that fits with my theory that the White House let CBS

swallow the hook. The first question of the documents' authenticity actually came from a guy named TankerKC who was formerly in the air force and noticed a signature out of place. His story seems to check out pretty well. Buckhead came back with the points about why the documents must have been forged hours later. However, I believe, but cannot prove, that the White House disseminated information about the problems with the documents to insure Rather would get caught.

Buckhead claims he got the documents from the CBS website. Anyway, if the White House was involved in getting Rather they had no need to wiretap. CBS gave copies of the documents to Dan Bartlett at the White House the night before the report aired.

I'd love to see a movie about all this too.

[Raster]

26. Horseshit. There was no "overwhelming evidence of forgery" from the start.

And, as pointed out MANY TIMES, the content of the report was true, as verified by the secretary to the Commander.

on edit: and your comment about Rather only in it now for his own ego is about as dishonest as they come.

[creeksneakers2]

93. The documents were definitely forged

Even Rather and CBS admitted that they couldn't authenticate the documents but then switched their story to one where the documents weren't real but the facts in them were. The documents contained abbreviations and terminology that was not in use by the guard. Typewriters from the time the documents were written couldn't produce the documents. Facts within the documents have been proved false. Even the secretary you refer too said they were fakes.

My assessment that Rather being only in it for his own ego is a conclusion, so it can't be classified as fact or fallacy. I based my conclusion first on Rather's behavior when problems with the story first arose. Instead of going where the new facts led, Rather launched an all out one sided defense of his previous reporting in a way that a criminal defense lawyer sets up a case. Rather was clearly only interested in saving his own ass. He ignored others at the network who were barking up the right tree when they complained that part of the reason the story ran was the lack of a denial by the White House.

I'm more convinced now because with all the evidence that's out Rather has to know the original report was bogus. He also has to know the White House set him up. His lawyers would have told him that. Instead of going after Bush and Bartlett, Rather is still trying to clear his own name.

[Usrename]

119. I don't think this stuff you are saying is true.

The typewriter stuff is just plain wrong. I was a technical writer in 70's and I can tell you from personal experience that the typewriter stuff is concocted. It is not true, so it cannot be evidence of any forgery. The composing machines that did that kind of thing were very common in those days. And it would not be surprising at all that someone would use a compositor to type sensitive stuff, especially if their secretary is a blabbermouth.

None of this is conclusive evidence of anything. The only evidence you've got is the story that one person denies typing the document.

That is not evidence of a forgery, as far a I can tell.

[creeksneakers2]

127. If we go with the far fetched idea that Lt. Colonel Killian

kept a secret $20,000 composing machine somewhere unknown to all we still have to explain why Killian would use the wrong abbreviations and terms and format when retyping the documents.

[Usrename]

133. Everybody had someone who they could send this stuff out to.

I have little doubt at all that he sent documents out all the time, to someone with a compositor, to have them typeset.

That was very common practice back in those days. Every neighborhood in every town had someone who did work like this. I'm sure that every military base in the country had access to someone who could typeset this kind of thing and was cleared (and usually bonded) to work on sensitive material. Killian would have access to more than one person who could have typed the documents. It's almost impossible to believe otherwise.

Is that all you got?

[blm]

124. Baloney - with a few million dollars to use the panel COULD EASILY discover if document was forged

but, ODDLY, that was never an issue they would even try to settle. Gee....wonder WHY?

[creeksneakers2]

126. They went into extensive discussion about whether the

documents were forged. The panel never reached a full conclusion. I can speculate on why. If you read the report you'll see they had a mountain or reasons to believe the documents were forged.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/...

[blm]

131. WITHOUT coming to a conclusion should've clued you in. They would've LOVED to conclude forgery but

could NOT. With all that money available to investigate that forgery they would SURELY have been ABLE to declare forgery.

That conclusion was pure CYA.

[annabanana]

35. ?

So you're saying Bush served honorably in the Guard?.. that his relationships did not keep him out of active duty in Vietnam?

[creeksneakers2]

38. No

Among falsehoods in the documents was a letter ordering Bush to take a physical months before the time he was allowed to take a physical was up. Another problem was a memo from a commander who was no longer with the guard at that time.

[No Elephants]

114. That, too, is a distraction. The only material issue in the physical

business is whether Bush did fail to show up for a physical. And the only reason that is material is his drug use. The real big picture is "Did Bush honorably complete his service or not?" All other issues are straw men.

As far as Rather, the only material issue is whether Rather deliberately broadcast material falsehoods about a candidate for the Presidency.

[creeksneakers2]

128. Those may be the issues to you

They are not the ones that were followed during the controversy. Its certain Bush didn't take his physical. There's no evidence at all it was because of drugs.

What Rather did is far beyond my original point, that the White House set Rather up and that Rather is more interested in clearing his own name than getting to the facts.

[acmavm]

37. Rather's in it for his own ego? Good thing we have people here like

you who know people's motivations better than themselves.

Your only problem is that you don't have a single clue. That report was true. Every last damn word of it. That's the point, isn't it?

[creeksneakers2]

94. The report wasn't true

I can judge peoples' motivations by obserserving their actions. If I see someone stomp on an ant I can deduce the person wanted to kill the ant. It doesn't take ESP. I've seen how Dan has handled all this and he has no concern for getting to the real truth.

Some of the report was, without a doubt, false.

[mojowork_n]

99. "Without a doubt," *what* was "false?"

I have Mary Mapes book on the whole sordid mess, and she really did go into extensive, specific detail on every point of controversy.

Can you do the same, or do you just want to fall back on blanket allegations: "actions," "ants," and "the real truth?"

[creeksneakers2]

129. Killian was not under pressure from General Staudt

because Staudt retired a year before all this happened. Therefore, Killian did not sugar coat an evaluation of Staudt.

The 60 Minutes report said Bush was ordered to take a physical and disobeyed. It turns out that the time line of events does not match the dates given in the forged order, therefore no such order was given, therefore, Bush did not disobey that order.

[Usrename]

134. I don't understand.

Are you saying that Bush reported for his physical, or that he was never ordered to take a physical?

[creeksneakers2]

137. Bush did not show up for his physical

There never was a specific order sent to Bush. All of the commanders from the unit say no individual orders were ever sent. On top of that, the forged order has dates that make no sense when viewed against the real timeline.

[Usrename]

138. The dates make perfect sense.

He was due to take a flight physical on May 3 and he was ordered to do so on May 4. The guy who issued the order is dead, right?

What makes you think the order is forged? There's no evidence of that, is there?

[creeksneakers2]

140. Bush's time period to take his physical wasn't up until July 31

So the document makes no sense, since its orders gives Bush a deadline to take his physical much sooner than the date actually required. Its inconceivable.

A curious side note I hadn't brought up before. Before the documents surfaced, Bill Burkett was a regular at a blog in which the subject of discussion was Bush's national guard records. While discussing the records, Burkett posted a mistaken interpretation of the rule about when physicals were due. While the document shown by 60 Minutes didn't line up with the real time frame, it coincided exactly with Burkett's interpretation of when the time frame would have been. Strong evidence that not only that the document was forged but also that Burkett was the forger. Other works by Burkett contained incorrect abbreviations and wrong terminology that matched what was found in the forged documents.

[mojowork_n]

143. What was the name of the website, and where's the post, or a link?

[mojowork_n]

142. So if you're aware of such trivial inconsistencies,

what objection can you have to Dan Rather's re-opening the case?

Or do you think you're going to be the one to finally cash in on the "prize money" -- offered to anyone who can corroborate Dubya's actually having showed up for service with the Alabama unit?

[No Elephants]

112. Which material facts asserted in the report were "without a doubt" false? Please?

[creeksneakers2]

130. Please see response #129

[Usrename]

42. Is there any evidence that the documents were forgeries?

I'm not aware of any evidence of the documents being forged. Is there any?

[creeksneakers2]

95. Please read the CBS investigative report

or my response #87

[louis-t]

56. I don't think the report was forged.

It was verified by the commander's assistant as accurate. The commander WAS feeling pressure to give stupidface a free pass. Every other part of the investigation was verified except for the one document. What the assistant said was "I cannot authenticate that document." The right seized this and twisted it to mean "forgery". The word "forgery" does not appear in any report.

[creeksneakers2]

97. The assistant said the documents were forgeries

Please see post #87

[mojowork_n]

61. Dan Bartlett and George Bush, credible sources???

The same Dan Bartlett who was Karen Hughes' head gopher and bottle-washer?

When she finally quit in disgust, Bartlett himself was tasked with the awesome responsibility for burping, feeding and sobering up Dubya, every few days, and keeping the visible damage from slips, falls and errant pretzels, to a minimum.

He's been lying and covering up for Bush since the '94 Texas governor's race.

Talk about a loyal flunky.

When Scott McClellan's book came out this past spring, confirming what most everyone on the planet already knew -- that the run-up to the Iraq War involved a whole lot of Bush-shit, and manipulation of the media by the White House -- it was Dan Bartlett who defended the President's role:

"...In a May, 2008, telephone interview with CNN, Bartlett 'asserted that McClellan did not play a major role in key events,' noting that the former aide was serving as deputy press secretary for domestic issues during the run-up to the war in Iraq, raising questions about how McClellan could claim the President used 'propaganda' to sell the war."

Of course, even a broken clock's correct twice a day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bartlett

"...Dan Bartlett, during an interview article published in the January '08 Texas Monthly, implied some conservative bloggers, such as Hugh Hewitt, were unfiltered mouthpieces for the GOP and Bush White House. The main quote was: 'I mean, talk about a direct I.V. into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.'"

Quote link:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-01-01/talks-2.php

The whole issue of G.O.P. "victimhood" was discussed in another D.U. post, a couple of days ago, when this article came out:

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feat...

G.O.P. "talking points," whether they come out of the mouth of an AM radio squawker, or the President's "White House Communications Director," are like a light pole to a drunk -- they're there much more for support, than for any illumination they might provide.

[creeksneakers2]

96. Of course I don't trust Bush or Bartlett

However, the admission that Bush told Bartlett before the story aired that facts in were false proves they knew the documents were forgeries. That's what lawyers call an admission against the maker's interests. It therefore carries weight.

For example, if Bush told me WMD were in Iraq I wouldn't believe him. If Bush told me he lied about WMD being in Iraq, I'd believe him.

[mojowork_n]

141. Did Bush tell Bartlett the "facts" were false......?

I thought he said the opposite.......!?!

[Richard Steele]

10. Dan Rather is a frickin' National Treasure. We could use more like him. K&R

[defendandprotect]

12. Rather I think was used re JFK coup --

I think he also owns property with Rumsfeld...????

Rather may have thought he was his own man and moved on --

True he worried r-w who hated him --

Rather remains a question ---

[Ammonium]

17. We was absolutely involved.

Rather got his start at the only reporter who was allowed to review the Zapruter film and he stated that the film showed Kennedy's head moving forward as a result of a shot fired from behind. Obviously, the film showed Kennedy's head being driving violently back and to the left.

[defendandprotect]

21. Yes ...but there's speculation they showed him an altered film...

with the scene of head moving back cut out --

Rather was shown the film pretty quickly -- that day, in fact/?????? --
so who would have imagined then it was already being altered --!!

And the Zapruder film is very heavily altered -- something many of us
couldn't see because of trust, I guess ... and how outrageous and frightening
a reality that would have been --!!!

Now...Rather would have also seen the famous video of McDuff/???? showing
that JFK was hit in right temple -- (a tough shot from the rear -!!!!) and
wonder what he made of that contradiction ...???

But, therefore, I've never really trusted Rather ... money doesn't seem to
aid truth???

[Ammonium]

65. It depends on who you believe

I think they needed a stooge. So here's Rather, a completely unknown reporter looking for his big break and he took it. The Fed's wanted him to lie, so he did.

I never trusted Rather.

[defendandprotect]

69. Maybe one day we'll know truth of this ....but if your idea

is the truth, I think he might have gotten antsy with the arrangement

later on ...

Meanwhile, he had a rapid rise, indeed --

[1monster]

75. Apparently, there was not wound in the temple. Read the article THE DAY KENNEDY DIED,

as told by one of the doctors who attended Kennedy at Parkland Hospital.

They concluded, before hearing about Oswald and the Book Depository, that Kennedy had been shot from the front...

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=M...

Dr. James Carrico, a resident at the time, had inserted an endo-tracheal tube into the president’s trachea and secured an airway when the president first entered the emergency room. Many years later, Carrico would become the chief of surgery at Parkland. Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Charles Baxter had arrived just before McClelland and had begun a tracheotomy, cutting into a quarter-size wound in the center of Kennedy’s throat. Dr. M.T. Jenkins, an anesthesiologist, was near the head of the cart, administering oxygen.(snip)

Jenkins had his hands full, but nodded down to Kennedy’s head. He said, “Bob, there’s a wound there.” The head was covered in blood and blood clots, tiny collections of dark red mass. McClelland thought he meant there was a wound at the president’s left temple. Later that gesture would cause some confusion.

As their fingers moved in and out of the president’s body, and through that afternoon, the doctors debated where the bullet came in and went out. Perry said he assumed the smaller hole in Kennedy’s neck was an entrance wound. They knew nothing of the events downtown, where some witnesses claimed a gunman by the infamous grassy knoll fired a shot from in front of the moving president. Lee Harvey Oswald fired from behind Kennedy as the limousine moved away from the book depository. At the time, the doctors hypothesized that perhaps a bullet entered at the front of the throat, ricocheted off the bony spinal column, and moved upward out the back of Kennedy’s head. At that point, the doctors were unaware of the wound in Kennedy’s back.

McClelland stared at the hole in the back of the president’s head. He looked at where the skull crumpled slightly around the edges. Knowing nothing else of the assassination at the time, he, too, assumed a bullet had come out of that opening.

He wouldn’t feel confident in his initial assessment until 11 and a half years later, when he and his wife watched an episode of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. As the couple got ready for bed, Carson introduced his guest, a young, ambitious television host named Geraldo Rivera. Rivera had with him footage of the assassination previously unseen by the public, footage known simply as “the Zapruder film.” Shot by Abraham Zapruder, an immigrant from the Ukraine, the 8-millimeter Kodachrome movie shows the motorcade through the duration of the assassination. As McClelland watched it for the first time, he saw the back of the president’s head blasted out. He saw the president swayed “back and to the left,” a phrase later repeated ad nauseum in Oliver Stone’s JFK. McClelland was convinced he had been standing over an exit wound.

[Richard Steele]

19. We were all young once. And most of us did things we are not proud of in our youth.

The BEST of us have learned from our mistakes;
used our mistakes as lessons to guide our growth
as human beings.

Dan Rather isn't perfect- he never was, and never will be.
Because, at the end of the day, he's still just a human being.

But, as far as 'Humans' and 'Personal Growth' overlap,
Dan Rather is a very large man, IMHO.

Richard

[defendandprotect]

22. We'll see...and hope you're right ---

[Richard Steele]

25. I hope I'm right too.

If I'm not, then I hope I'll live long enough
to call this opinion a mistake that I learned from.

KnowhutImean?

[No Elephants]

110. You "think" he owns property with Rumfeld? That is your reason for asserting that Rather remains a

question?

[PSPS]

13. William Paley is spinning in his grave

His once mighty and courageous Columbia Broadcasting System is now a completely neutered disgrace.

[defendandprotect]

24. Whoa ...don't think Paley was ever the innocent in "events" like this ...

especially re JFK assassination --

There's a Walter Cronkite story re a supposed CBS probe of JFK assassination and
Cronkite presented with new/false conclusions on cue cards reversing the actual facts ...

I believe he was set up by Paley ...???

And didn't Paley sandbag Edward R.Murrow after he felled McCarthy??

[PatrynXX]

14. coming from the same CBS that kinda screwed Lowell Bergman

this seriously doesnt come as a surprise. Wonder what Lowell would say to all this. CBS isnt in the news biz anymore anyway. Its a corporate entity.
Worried about its bottom line. That truthful reporting.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

15. GO DAN AND DON

Dan Rather and Don Siegelman - let justice roll down like a mighty river.

[McCamy Taylor]

16. And here is WHY Viacom/CBS had to kiss Bush's you know what.

Recall that Viacom could have been forced by the Bush FCC to sell off its television holdings in order to get into compliance with federal law. Kerry would have forced Viacom to do it. CBS needed Bush's favor, and it wanted four more years of exemption from the law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Please, please, please Obama, make Viacom obey the law. They have only been in violation since 2000 .

[snot]

20. sorry I'm too late to k or r the O.P. you refer to.

[No Elephants]

113. Have you suggested this anywhere that PE Obama might learn of it?

[Divine Discontent]

27. taking time to K&R for Dan The Man....

What's the frequency, Kenneth! - never will forget that - but neither will I forget that he was blackballed by CBS and I hope he wins this suit, but he's already been proven right in history - I mean, with all the previous crap, only to now add these revelations to it - that they had GOP bastards on the supposedly independent review board thwarting him from being shown as right! asshats.


Many different Yes We Did items in the Obama/Biden section www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Kire]

28. this is important

Kick & Recommend

[Hubert Flottz]

29. K&R

[Window]

30. This is great news. Go Dan...kick butt.

[Baby Snooks]

32. What price justice?

"So far, Mr. Rather has spent more than $2 million of his own money on the suit. And according to documents filed recently in court, he may be getting something for his money."

We live in a society in which the "ethos" is if you know the person you are about to do in can't afford an attorney, go right ahead. I think that disturbs me most about this than anything else. The new American dream is getting it all and getting away with getting it all.

When Ken Lay contacted Vinson & Elkins about the concerns of one of his employees, Vinson & Elkins of course responded with regard to how to deal with a whistleblower. Not the matter of fraud on the part of Enron. And so it goes in the late, great United States of America.

What price justice? Beyond the means of most Americans.

[olegramps]

33. The crux of the matter:

As I remember the documents authenticity was called into question and the secretary at the time when Bush was serving stated that she had not typed the document. But, she stated that it accurately reflected his commander's position in the matter. This important aspect was sweep away in the avalanche of propaganda by the right wing. The primary fact that the Commander and Chief was nothing more than a chicken shit draft dodging coward was totally ignored. Being a vet, I could never understand how Colin Powell could have ever agreed to be in this coward's cabinet.

[underpants]

44. Good summary here-yes Gen. Tunripseed's secretary said that she didn't type THOSE documents

But that they did reflect what occurred at the time
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=326

[SpiralHawk]

39. CBS kissing republicon ass, and failing the American people

Ptoooey CBS - you got no integrity, no honor, no cred.

Keep serving up Katie Cutie & republicon propaganda points, and keep SINKING.

Not many suckers still have any faith in CBS and the propaganda they sling.

[whistle]

40. Dan Rather was scapegoated and blacklisted in the same way that McCarthyism

...attacked Hollywood in the early 1950s. The perpetrators had the same mindset and objectives which was to quell all journalistic investigation and reporting against the Bush administration policies toward the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and domestic policies. I applaud Dan Rather's courage and battle in seeking out the truth and I hope he prevails.

[peacetalksforall]

41. If you step away from argument and you try to get a picture of all the machinations

of all the scandals that involved the assassinations of body or character in the last forty five years, you will notice a mafia type criminality of set-ups, secrets, leaks, betrayals, revenge, take-outs - all coming out of the Republican side of the White House administrations using government agency employees and the networks and some papers and the pay-off of some election workers and patsy roles of Secretary of States.

It ended up to be the DOJ, CIA, FBI, Immigration and the military roles of some of these government employees.

They even took out their own in addition to heads of states and mass-acres of certain people - especially in the CIA and FBI - countless (?) drownings, falls, suicides. These are very determined people running this show of the last forty-five years (at a minimum).

And they often use the same character actors from peak event to peak event. Then, in this last near full decade, they used church reverends and their faithful - to their fullest - especially, graduates of their law schools.

And, in this decade, they used torture in prisons without mercy. They surpassed themselves. The military with the reverends and the corporations with their privatization of the votes surpassed all others in this century - so far. You once had a job because of their largesse in arranging their own largesse.

[tomp]

43. the cia infiltrated the media many years ago.

the media is essentially black ops with a pretty face.

[peacetalksforall]

47. That's an excellent way to phrase it. And since they always figure out how to get six for one

out of every strategy or maneuver - they get their outlet and they make money on advertisements. Money that they can use to pay their 'guest experts' who work for their military and their think tanks. They then get to ridicule and run their character assasinations with money from Mercedes and Toyota. Even the Republican union busting is mafia like. They've had windfalls from their advance planning and dictatorship.

[StClone]

45. What goes around

Much of the crap that the Cons pulled will come back to weigh them down. Stealing elections, stealing Dan Rather's livelihood will come back to crash down on them.

[No Elephants]

111. Only if Democrats like you and me see to it. American voters are too passive.

[mod mom]

46. from FDL on Nov 7th:

CBS Vs. Rather: The Fix Was In
By: Eli Friday November 7, 2008 7:49 am

In case you have any remaining doubts about whether Rathergate was innocent incompetence or deliberate sabotage, consider this list of names that CBS considered for their two-person post-scandal inquiry panel (ultimately chaired by Bush I AG Dick Thornburgh):

William Buckley
Robert Novak
Kate O'Beirne
Nicholas Von Hoffman
Tucker Carlson
Pat Buchanan
George Will
Lou Dobbs
Matt Drudge
Robert Barkley
Robert Kagan
Fred Barnes
William Kristol
John Podhoretz
David Brooks
William Safire
Bernard Goldberg
Ann Coulter
Andrew Sullivan
Christopher Hitchens
PJ O'Rourke
Christopher Caldwell
Elliot Abrams
Charles Krauthammer
William Bennett
Rush Limbaugh

At the very bottom of the list, someone wrote in one more name. "Roger Ailes."

CBS's explanation? That they needed to protect themselves from charges of liberal bias. Good one.

As I have said before: The news media are not simply trying to boost ratings - they are deliberately defending and advancing the interests of the GOP, because that's where their financial interests lie. The Rather case fascinates me because it's such a great case study of just how far a media corporation will go to help out Republicans. I can't wait to hear more.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/07/cbs-vs-rather-the-fix...

[Robb]

59. Indeed. This is why they sandbagged Palin with Katie

As soon as the GOP leadership determined their ticket was sunk (probably 45 seconds after Palin was announced), they torpedoed her.

Not to say she wouldn't have been sunk no matter who she went on the air with. She didn't have to give any interviews, we all know they would've kept getting away with keeping her hidden... we were the only ones complaining about it, really.

But the "long game" for the GOP is obvious, especially now that Fox and everyone else on the right is talking smack about Sarah: she has to go. She had to go long ago, and they knew it. CBS was the tool they used to get it done.

[Delphinus]

117. Is Fox talking smack about Sarah?

I'm older, but I'm thinking 'talking smack' is derogatory - if that is a correct assumption, you're saying Fox is talking badly about her. How are they doing that? What are they saying?

[blm]

77. Lest we forget WHY Kerry's campaign was HEAVILY EDITED by msm and Bush had 24/7 protection:

Add to timeline - June 2, 2003:

Kerry seeks to Reverse FCC's Wrongheaded Vote



Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval
Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

_______

[mod mom]

86. Lest we forget?

Surely you jest

[No Elephants]

115. They needed to protect themselves from charges of liberal bias? But, they did not mind

setting things up so that charges of neocon bias would be totally vaild? Give me a break.

This is a lesson, folks. They counted on us to go along.