<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.opendemocracy.net" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>open Democracy News Analysis - Dan Rather, CBS, and George W Bush, Sidney Blumenthal  - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/america_world/dan_rather</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Dan Rather, CBS, and George W Bush, Sidney Blumenthal &quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Andrew Yu-Jen Wang  on &quot;Dan Rather, CBS, and George W Bush&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/america_world/dan_rather#comment-494407</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Speaking of George W. Bush: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Many people know what Bush did. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bush was absolute evil. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bush is now like a fugitive from justice. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bush is a psychological prisoner. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bush has a lot to worry about. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang&lt;br /&gt;
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996&lt;br /&gt;
Messiah College, Grantham, PA&lt;br /&gt;
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG&lt;br /&gt;
______________________&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memory so it never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:44:37 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Andrew Yu-Jen Wang </dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 494407 at http://www.opendemocracy.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>tbmmoe on &quot;Dan Rather, CBS, and George W Bush&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/america_world/dan_rather#comment-437150</link>
 <description>Great article. CBS, Viacom, and those who seek to manipulate the media should be quaking in their boots at the thought of what might come out in a truly fair investigation. Freedom of the press is under assault from powerful political idealogues who have no ethical qualms in attaining their goals. Truly independent, unbiased, and hard-hitting investigative journalism is a vigilant protector of democratic principles. Those who thrive on secrecy, backroom deal making, and political intrigue, work in darkness, and cannot survive the light of public scrutiny.  If Dan Rather and the producers of 60 Minutes II commited an unforgivable error in their investigation of George W. Bush&#039;s National Guard record, those who sought their dismissals should welcome all the facts as presented in a public court of law.</description>
 <pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2007 04:10:54 +0100</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>tbmmoe</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 437150 at http://www.opendemocracy.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>joe_11 on &quot;Dan Rather, CBS, and George W Bush&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/america_world/dan_rather#comment-437015</link>
 <description>If there is any justice, CBS and Viacom will go the way of Enron - though Enron did not do nearly as much damage to our economy and national security as the second miselection of George W. Bush.

So far it just goes to show that even though you can&#039;t fool ALL the people all the time, you can fool ENOUGH of the people some of the time if you can come up with the right combination of fear and greed.

Three cheers for Dan Rather!</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:10:47 +0100</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>joe_11</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 437015 at http://www.opendemocracy.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>sindvik on &quot;Dan Rather, CBS, and George W Bush&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/america_world/dan_rather#comment-436910</link>
 <description>Thank you so much, Mr. Blumenthal.  It is unlikely that any amount of printed words will revive the American public and demonstrate this grave danger to the Republic.  Yes indeed, perhaps an old fashioned trial lasting a few months could accomplish much more.

Stephen Indvik</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:11:16 +0100</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>sindvik</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 436910 at http://www.opendemocracy.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Dan Rather, CBS, and George W Bush, Sidney Blumenthal </title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/america_world/dan_rather</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
Dan Rather&amp;#39;s complaint
against CBS and Viacom, its parent company, filed in New York state court on 19 September 2007
and seeking $70 million in damages for his wrongful dismissal as &lt;em&gt;CBS Evening News&lt;/em&gt; anchor, has aroused hoots of
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/la-et-rutten22sep22,1,6036600.column?coll=la-headlines-business-enter&quot;&gt;derision&lt;/a&gt; from a host of
commentators. They&amp;#39;ve said that the former anchor is &amp;quot;sad&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;pathetic&amp;quot;,
&amp;quot;a loser&amp;quot;, on an &amp;quot;ego&amp;quot; trip and engaged in a mad gesture
&amp;quot;no sane person&amp;quot; would do, and that &amp;quot;no one in his right mind
would keep insisting that those phony documents are real and that the Bush National
Guard story is true.&amp;quot; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
If the court accepts his
suit, however, launching the adjudication of legal issues such as breach of
fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract, it will set in motion
an inexorable mechanism that will grind out answers to other questions as well.
Then Rather&amp;#39;s suit will become an extraordinary commission of inquiry into a
major news organisation&amp;#39;s intimidation, complicity and corruption under the
Bush administration. No congressional committee would be able to penetrate into
the sanctum of any news organisation to divulge its inner workings. But &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/la-et-rather21sep21,1,81996.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter&quot;&gt;intent&lt;/a&gt; on vindicating his
reputation, capable of financing an expensive legal challenge, and armed with
the power of subpoena, Rather will charge his attorneys to interrogate news
executives and perhaps administration officials under oath on a secret and
sordid chapter of the Bush presidency.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In making his case, Rather
will certainly establish beyond reasonable doubt that George W Bush never
completed his required service in the Texas Air National Guard. Moreover,
Rather&amp;#39;s suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes II&lt;/em&gt; piece were not inauthentic
and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the
information they contained - and that that information is true. Indeed, no
credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;span class=&quot;pullquote_new&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sidney Blumenthal&lt;/strong&gt; is a former assistant and senior adviser to
President Clinton. He is the author of &lt;a href=&quot;http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8233.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;How Bush Rules:
Chronicles of a Radical R&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;e&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;gime &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;(Princeton University Press, 2006). He writes
a column for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/08/27/gonzales_resignation/index.html?source=rss&amp;amp;aim=yahoo-salon&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Salon&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Among Sidney Blumenthal&amp;#39;s recent articles in &lt;strong&gt;openDemocracy&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/democracy/bush_beseiged_4499.jsp&quot;&gt;Bush besieged&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;(4 April 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/democracy/soft_edge_4582.jsp&quot;&gt;Bush&amp;#39;s soft-focus hard-edge&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;(2 May 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/democracy/royal_crush_4619.jsp&quot;&gt;Bush&amp;#39;s royal crush&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;(16 May 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/paul_wolfowitzs_tomb.jsp&quot;&gt;Paul Wolfowitz&amp;#39;s tomb&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; (1 June 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/democracy_power/america_inside_out/libby_cabal&quot;&gt;The Libby cabal&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;(13 June
2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/democracy_power/america_inside_out/legal_noose_bush&quot;&gt;A legal noose around Bush&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;(27 June 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/democracy_power/america_inside_out/lady_bird_johnson_political_journey&quot;&gt;Lady Bird Johnson: a political
journey&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; (16 July 2007 )&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/democracy_power/america_inside_out/politics_protection&quot;&gt;The politics of protection&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; (1 August 2007) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/article/democracy_power/america_inside/colin_powell&quot;&gt;Colin Powell&amp;#39;s
responsibility&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; (15 August 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/article/democracy_power/america_inside/karl_rove&quot;&gt;After the
White House: discordant tunes, fading glory&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; (29 August 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;/article/democracy_power/america_inside/us_politics_command&quot;&gt;The
American politics of Iraqi war&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; (17 September 2007)&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Most cases of this sort are
usually settled before discovery. But Rather has made plain that he is
uninterested in a cash settlement. He has filed his suit precisely to be able
to take depositions.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In his effort to demonstrate
his mistreatment, Rather will detail how network executives curried favour with
the administration, offering him up as a human sacrifice. The panel that CBS
appointed and paid millions to in order to investigate Rather&amp;#39;s journalism will
be exposed as a shoddy kangaroo court.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Rather&amp;#39;s complaint has
already asserted a pattern of network submission to administration pressure,
beginning with the Abu Ghraib story. In early 2004, Mary Mapes, a producer for &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes II&lt;/em&gt; with more than two decades
of experience, uncovered the torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Her
sources were sound and the evidence incontrovertible, but according to Rather&amp;#39;s
complaint, &amp;quot;CBS management attempted to bury&amp;quot; the story. In a highly
unusual move, then CBS News president Andrew Heyward and then senior vice-
president Betsy West personally intervened to demand editing changes and ever
more &amp;quot;substantiation&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Rather&amp;#39;s suit states that
&amp;quot;for weeks, they refused to grant permission to air the story&amp;quot; and
&amp;quot;continued to &amp;#39;raise the goalposts&amp;#39;, insisting on additional substantiation.&amp;quot;
Even after Mapes gained possession of some of the now-infamous photographs of
the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib (a full set of which was later obtained
and posted by Salon), the news executives suppressed the story, &amp;quot;in
part&amp;quot;, according to Rather&amp;#39;s suit, &amp;quot;occasioned by acceding to pressures
brought to bear by government officials.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
General Richard Myers, then
chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff, called Rather at his home, sources close
to the case told me, telling him that broadcasting the story would endanger
&amp;quot;national security&amp;quot;. Myers explained to Rather that United States
soldiers, just then poised for an assault on Fallujah, would be demoralised and
suggested that Rather and CBS might threaten the outcome of the battle and the
soldiers&amp;#39; safety.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Only when Seymour Hersh,
investigative reporter for the &lt;em&gt;New
Yorker,&lt;/em&gt; relying on different sources from Mapes&amp;#39;s, unearthed the Abu Ghraib
story and CBS executives learned that the magazine was about to scoop the
network did they grudgingly permit it to be aired. &amp;quot;Even then&amp;quot;,
Rather&amp;#39;s suit states, &amp;quot;CBS imposed the unusual restrictions that the story
would be aired only once, that it would not be preceded by on-air promotion,
and that it would not be referenced on the CBS Evening News.&amp;quot; Feeling
forced against their will to broadcast a story they knew was accurate, CBS&amp;#39;s
executives did everything within their power to ensure the public would pay as
little attention to it as possible by prohibiting any mention of it. CBS&amp;#39;s
self-censorship set the stage for its reaction to the Bush National Guard
story.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The widely accepted account
that Mapes and Rather&amp;#39;s original piece on Bush and the guard was unproved and
discredited has been based on the notion that the documents revealed were
false. But three years after the heated controversy exploded, these premises
appear very uncertain in the cold light of day.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;The truth of duty&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Upon graduation from Yale in
1968, George W Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard, known as
the &amp;quot;Champagne Unit&amp;quot; for serving as a haven for the privileged sons
of the Texas elite seeking to escape duty in Vietnam.
Through carefully placed calls made by Bush family friends, Bush was edged
ahead of a 500-man waiting list. Then, after failing to complete his required
hours of flight, he requested transfer to a unit in Montgomery, Alabama.
But there is no proof that he ever performed any of his service there; he
refused to take a physical and was grounded. Ordered to return to his Houston base, he simply
disappeared. Yet he was honourably discharged in 1973, though there is no proof
that he had fulfilled his obligation.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
During the 2000 campaign,
the &lt;em&gt;Boston Globe&lt;/em&gt; reported a number of
discrepancies in Bush&amp;#39;s National Guard record. However, the rest of the
national press corps virtually ignored the &lt;em&gt;Globe&amp;#39;s&lt;/em&gt;
stories, instead preferring to swarm around fictions about Al Gore helpfully
stoked by the Bush campaign. Bush refused to make public his military records,
in contrast to his principal primary opponent, Senator John McCain, who had
released his. But the press collectively let the matter pass. Nonetheless, the
gaps in Bush&amp;#39;s service as reported by the &lt;em&gt;Globe&lt;/em&gt;
had not been answered and hung in the air, if anyone cared to pursue them.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
After breaking the Abu
Ghraib story, Mapes, who lived in Texas
and had reported on Bush when he was governor, began looking into the National
Guard episode. By then, Senator John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam war hero who
was awarded the Silver and Bronze stars, had emerged as the Democratic
candidate. The Bush operation arranged for funding a front group called Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth to mount a smear campaign that Kerry had been
dissembling all these years about his medals. Kerry&amp;#39;s campaign, like Gore&amp;#39;s,
chose not to dignify obvious lies by responding, and the press lagged behind
the story as it gained traction. Discrediting Kerry&amp;#39;s greatest biographical
asset was calculated to compensate for Bush&amp;#39;s hidden liability. In February
2004, the &lt;em&gt;Washington Post&lt;/em&gt; followed on
the &lt;em&gt;Boston Globe&lt;/em&gt; articles of 2000,
and its reporters were unable to find anyone that could corroborate Bush&amp;#39;s
claim that he had served at an Alabama
air base in 1972. To an aggressive journalist like Mapes it seemed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/10/DI2005111001414.html?nav=nsc&quot;&gt;logical&lt;/a&gt; to examine Bush&amp;#39;s National
Guard story, which remained a mystery.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The opaque story was partly
illuminated by a piece in &lt;em&gt;Salon&lt;/em&gt;,
written by Mary Jacoby, on 2 September 2004. Offering extensive documentation,
including photographs and letters, Linda Allison, who had housed Bush during
his missing year, explained that his drunken misbehaviour was creating havoc
for his father&amp;#39;s political aspirations and that the elder Bush asked his old
friend Jimmy Allison, a political consultant from Midland,
Texas, now living in Alabama, to handle the wastrel son.
&amp;quot;The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family,
and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy&amp;#39;s wing,&amp;quot; Linda
Allison told &lt;em&gt;Salon&lt;/em&gt;. During the time
the younger Bush was under the watchful eye of the Allisons, he never went to a
National Guard base or wore a uniform. &amp;quot;Good lord, no. I had no idea that
the National Guard was involved in his life in any way&amp;quot;, said Allison. She
did, however, remember him drinking, urinating on a car, screaming at police
and trashing the apartment he had rented.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Broadcast and backlash&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
On 8 September, &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes II&lt;/em&gt; broadcast its &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml&quot;&gt;story&lt;/a&gt;. It featured former Texas
Lieutenant-Govrnor Ben Barnes, a Democrat, who disclosed that just before
George W Bush would be eligible for the draft, a mutual friend of then Republican
George HW Bush asked him to help procure the younger Bush a spot in the
&amp;quot;Champagne Unit&amp;quot;. Barnes appeared on camera, saying: &amp;quot;It&amp;#39;s been
a long time ago, but he said basically would I help young George Bush get in
the Air National Guard. I was a young, ambitious politician doing what I
thought was acceptable. It was important to make friends. And I recommended a
lot of people for the National Guard during the Vietnam era - as speaker of the
House and as lieutenant governor. I would describe it as preferential treatment.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Then Rather, acting as
correspondent, introduced new material drawn from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate&quot;&gt;files of Colonel Jerry Killian&lt;/a&gt;, Bush&amp;#39;s squadron commander:
&amp;quot;&amp;#39;60 Minutes&amp;#39; has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken
from Col. Killian&amp;#39;s personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum
from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about &amp;#39;how
he can get out of coming to drill from now through November.&amp;#39; Lt. Bush tells
his commander &amp;#39;he is working on a campaign in Alabama ... and may not have time to take
his physical.&amp;#39; Killian adds that he thinks Lt. Bush has gone over his head, and
is &amp;#39;talking to someone upstairs.&amp;#39;&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Another Killian memo
contained the &lt;em&gt;coup de grâce&lt;/em&gt;: &amp;quot;I
ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended not just for failing to take a physical
... but for failing to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard
standards. The officer [then Lt. Bush] has made no attempt to meet his training
certification or flight physical.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Within minutes of the
conclusion of the broadcast, conservative bloggers launched a &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/28/172943.shtml&quot;&gt;counterattack&lt;/a&gt;. The chief of these critics
was a Republican Party activist in Georgia. Almost certainly, these
bloggers, who had been part of meetings or conference calls organised by Karl
Rove&amp;#39;s political operation, coordinated their actions with Rove&amp;#39;s office.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Questioned for the &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes&lt;/em&gt; story, White House
communications director Dan Bartlett had not denied the story but simply
characterised it as &amp;quot;dirty&amp;quot;. The rightwing bloggers raised questions
about the authenticity of the Killian documents, arguing that typewriters of
the time lacked the specific superscript in the documents, that the
proportional spacing was wrong and the font anachronistic, and that therefore
they were likely &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39&quot;&gt;fabricated&lt;/a&gt; on a computer. Various
handwriting and typewriter experts weighed in, some challenging the documents&amp;#39;
authenticity. The press almost uniformly took the absence of a universal
opinion of experts as proof of the documents&amp;#39; falsity. Because they could not
be proved with complete certainty to be authentic, they must be counterfeit.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
While the battle over the
authenticity experts and assorted inconclusive sources continued, CBS
interviewed Marian Carr Knox, who had been Colonel Killian&amp;#39;s assistant when the
memos were allegedly produced. She didn&amp;#39;t recall typing them and didn&amp;#39;t believe
Killian had written them (though various handwriting experts had verified his
signature), but she also asserted, &amp;quot;The information in here is
correct.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Retreat and repair&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Under fire, CBS executives
reeled backward. On 20 September, Heyward issued an apology: &amp;quot;Based on
what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which
is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the
report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply
regret.&amp;quot; And Rather &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml&quot;&gt;chimed in&lt;/a&gt;: &amp;quot;If I knew then what
I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I
certainly would not have used the documents in question.&amp;quot; With these
self-abasing &lt;em&gt;mea culpas&lt;/em&gt; (Rather
claims in his complaint that his statement was &amp;quot;coerced&amp;quot;), the
veracity of the story about Bush&amp;#39;s past seemed to be settled in his favour. But
the underlying facts of the story were not discredited; nor was the
authenticity of the documents resolved.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The day after these
apologies CBS announced the creation of a review panel to determine &amp;quot;what
errors occurred.&amp;quot; Two Bush family loyalists, Richard Thornburgh, former
attorney general in the elder Bush&amp;#39;s administration, and Louis Boccardi, former
executive editor and CEO of the Associated Press, were chosen to head the
internal investigation. Thornburgh had been the subject of critical Rather
reports, while Boccardi felt close and indebted to the elder Bush for being
helpful as vice-president in gaining the release of AP reporter Terry Anderson,
held hostage for six years in Lebanon.
Lawyers in Thornburgh&amp;#39;s firm with no background in journalism and media
performed the real work of the panel and wrote its final report.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
As the panel called
witnesses, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/R/htmlR/redstonesum/restonesum.htm&quot;&gt;Sumner Redstone&lt;/a&gt;, CEO of Viacom (CBS&amp;#39;s
owner), declared his interest in the 2004 election. &amp;quot;I look at the
election from what&amp;#39;s good for Viacom. I vote for what&amp;#39;s good for Viacom. I
vote, today, Viacom&amp;quot;, he said. In fact, Viacom had a number of crucial
issues before the Federal Communications Commission, including loosening media
ownership rules. &amp;quot;I don&amp;#39;t want to denigrate Kerry&amp;quot;, said Redstone,
&amp;quot;but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration
is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many
things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people
... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican
administration is better for our company.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Rather believed that the
panel would conduct a fair-minded inquiry. But he learned that neither he nor
Mapes would be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. They heard from some
researchers on the &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes II&lt;/em&gt;
staff that before they had been questioned, a CBS executive had told them that
they should feel free to pin all blame on Rather and Mapes. CBS had told Rather
to cease investigating the story and had even hired a private investigator of
its own, Erik Rigler. Rather and Mapes discovered that Rigler&amp;#39;s investigation
had uncovered corroboration for their story. Rather&amp;#39;s complaint states that
&amp;quot;after following all the leads given to him by Ms. Mapes, he [Rigler] was
of the opinion that the Killian Documents were most likely authentic, and that
the underlying story was certainly accurate.&amp;quot; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
But rather than probing
Rigler on his findings, the panel, to the extent its lawyers questioned him in
a single telephone call, &amp;quot;appeared more interested whether Mr. Rigler had
uncovered derogatory information concerning Mr. Rather or Ms. Mapes, as to
which he had no information&amp;quot;, according to the Rather complaint. Rigler&amp;#39;s
report was suppressed, never presented to the panel, and remains suppressed by
CBS. Nor did the panel fully question James Pierce, the handwriting expert
consulted by &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes&lt;/em&gt; who insisted
that the signature on the documents was surely Killian&amp;#39;s.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
When Mapes appeared before
the panel, she was harshly questioned at length about her use of the word
&amp;quot;horseshit&amp;quot;. On the issue of the special privileges granted to those
sons of wealth in the &amp;quot;Champagne Unit,&amp;quot; Thornburgh asked her,
&amp;quot;Mary, don&amp;#39;t you think it&amp;#39;s possible that all these fine young men got in
on their own merits?&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
When it came to the merits
of the facts the panel elided them. It never addressed the facts at all.
Instead it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml&quot;&gt;criticised&lt;/a&gt; the &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes&lt;/em&gt; team for failing to &amp;quot;obtain clear
authentication&amp;quot; of the Killian documents, among other &amp;quot;errors&amp;quot;,
though it admitted it could not prove one way or another whether they were
inauthentic. Mapes and three other producers were dismissed. &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes II&lt;/em&gt; was abolished. And on the
day after Bush&amp;#39;s re-election, Rather was unceremoniously &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7313-2004Nov23.html&quot;&gt;fired&lt;/a&gt;. His contract had called
for him to continue as anchor for an additional year and then to serve as a
correspondent for &lt;em&gt;60 Minutes&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;60 Minutes II&lt;/em&gt;, but that promise was not
honoured. CBS believed that by severing its link with Rather it could put the
whole incident behind it and begin a new happy relationship with the ascendant
Republicans. and 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;A muffled protest&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
An article by James Goodale,
former vice-chairman and general counsel of the &lt;em&gt;New York Times&lt;/em&gt;, in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=17871&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;New York Review of Books&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; on 7 April 2005, and his
subsequent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17984&quot;&gt;exchange&lt;/a&gt; with Thornburgh and
Boccardi, went little noticed. Goodale found the panel&amp;#39;s report filled with
flaws, lacking a factual basis, revealing an absence of due diligence and due
process, and substituting empty legal concepts and language for any
understanding of the actual gritty practice of journalism. Goodale determined
that the &amp;quot;underlying facts of Rather&amp;#39;s &amp;#39;60 Minutes&amp;#39; report are
substantially true.&amp;quot; He observed, &amp;quot;Since the broadcast, no one has
come forward to say the program was untruthful.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Goodale&amp;#39;s summation rejected
the report and left its credibility in tatters: &amp;quot;The rest of the report,
which is directed to the news-gathering process of CBS, is flawed. The panel
was unable to decide whether the documents were authentic or not. It didn&amp;#39;t
hire its own experts. It didn&amp;#39;t interview the principal expert for CBS. It all
but ignored an important argument for authenticating the documents 
- &amp;#39;meshing.&amp;#39; It did not allow cross-examination. It introduced a standard for
document authentication very difficult for news organizations to meet - &amp;#39;chain
of custody&amp;#39; - and, lastly, it characterized parts of the broadcast as false,
misleading, or both, in a way that is close to nonsensical. One is tempted to
say that the report has as many flaws as the flaws it believes it has found in
Dan Rather&amp;#39;s CBS broadcast.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
But Goodale&amp;#39;s magisterial
and experienced voice seemed to be a faint cry in the wilderness. Who, after
all, cared anymore?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In November 2005, Mapes
published a memoir, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthandduty.com/truthandduty.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Truth
and Duty&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;,
containing her memo to Thornburgh and Boccardi that they had failed to include
in the appendix of the panel&amp;#39;s report, although they reproduced many other
memos and documents. Mapes&amp;#39;s argument was that the Killian documents
&amp;quot;meshed&amp;quot; with the facts in precise and nuanced ways. &amp;quot;The
Killian memos, when married to the official documents, fit like a glove&amp;quot;,
she wrote. &amp;quot;There is not a date, or a name, or an action out of place. Nor
does the content of the Killian memos differ in any way from the information
that has come out after our story ... In order to conclude that the documents
are forged or utterly unreliable, two questions must be answered: 1) how could
anyone have forged such pristinely accurate information; and 2) why would
anyone have taken such great pains to forge the truth?&amp;quot; But Mapes&amp;#39;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801843.html&quot;&gt;book&lt;/a&gt;, like Goodale&amp;#39;s article,
was all but ignored.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;The story was true&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Dan Rather has always been
an uncomfortable figure, sometimes abrasive, sometimes strangely inappropriate
or baffling, given to rustic rhetoric at odd moments, and sometimes and
suddenly lapsing into teary sentimentality or bursts of patriotic doggerel.
Since his confrontations as the correspondent covering the Nixon White House,
conservatives have targeted him as a symbol of the despised &amp;quot;liberal
media&amp;quot;. However idiosyncratic, Rather stood for the remnants of CBS&amp;#39;s
tradition of speaking truth to power, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/murrowedwar/murrowedwar.htm&quot;&gt;Edward R Murrow&lt;/a&gt; did finally about Senator
Joseph McCarthy and Walter Cronkite did finally about the Vietnam war and
Watergate. The corporate unease with Murrow&amp;#39;s outspokenness, leading to the
cancellation of his weekly programme, &lt;em&gt;See
It Now&lt;/em&gt; (depicted in the recent film &lt;em&gt;Good
Night, and Good Luck&lt;/em&gt;), was little different from the unease with Rather a
half-century later. At last, the corporation&amp;#39;s necessity for demonising Rather
coincided with the long-standing conservative demonising.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
When CBS replaced the edgy
Rather with the sugary Katie Couric as anchor of the &lt;em&gt;Evening News&lt;/em&gt;, it imagined it had solved its problem, its
&amp;quot;errors&amp;quot;. The news would get softer, the Republicans in control of
the White House and Congress would be nicer, Viacom would grab more media, and
ratings would climb. Thus, dismissing Rather would yield untold dividends.
Unfortunately for CBS&amp;#39;s visionaries, none of that has worked out as planned.
Couric simply lacks basic journalistic instincts and skills, and the &lt;em&gt;CBS Evening News&lt;/em&gt; is at rock-bottom in
ratings and sinking farther.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Rather could have simply
allowed the statute of limitations to run out, lived off his millions, and
faded away. But the incident ate at him. On one level, the Bush National Guard
story is about Bush and the National Guard. On another, of course, it is about
Rather&amp;#39;s reputation. But on yet another it is about CBS&amp;#39;s overwhelming desire
to please the Bush White House and censor itself. The White House campaign
against Rather has been so successful that many in the national press corps behave
as though in mouthing its talking points they are demonstrating their own
independent thought.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
On 20 September, the day
after he filed his suit, Rather said, &amp;quot;The story was true&amp;quot;. Rather&amp;#39;s
suit may turn into one of the most sustained and informative acts of
investigative journalism in his long career. He is not going gentle into that
good night. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;rating-item&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rating&quot; id=&quot;rating_mean_34684&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rating-intro&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;rating-intro-text&quot;&gt;Average rating&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;star avg on&quot;&gt;&lt;a style=&quot;width: 100%;&quot; onclick=&quot;return false;&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;star avg on&quot;&gt;&lt;a style=&quot;width: 100%;&quot; onclick=&quot;return false;&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;star avg on&quot;&gt;&lt;a style=&quot;width: 100%;&quot; onclick=&quot;return false;&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;star avg on&quot;&gt;&lt;a style=&quot;width: 100%;&quot; onclick=&quot;return false;&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;star avg&quot;&gt;&lt;a style=&quot;width: 100%;&quot; onclick=&quot;return false;&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;num-votes&quot;&gt;(&lt;span id=&quot;rating_num_votes_34684&quot;&gt;9&lt;/span&gt; votes)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;form action=&quot;/crss/node/34684&quot;  method=&quot;post&quot; id=&quot;rating_form_34684&quot; class=&quot;rating&quot; title=&quot;Rating: 5.0&quot;&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;form-item&quot;&gt;
 &lt;label for=&quot;rating_options_34684&quot;&gt;Rate this: &lt;/label&gt;
 &lt;select name=&quot;edit[rating]&quot; class=&quot;form-select rating-options&quot; title=&quot;Rate this&quot; id=&quot;rating_options_34684&quot; &gt;&lt;option value=&quot;0&quot;&gt;---&lt;/option&gt;&lt;option value=&quot;100&quot; selected=&quot;selected&quot;&gt;Excellent!&lt;/option&gt;&lt;option value=&quot;80&quot;&gt;Great!&lt;/option&gt;&lt;option value=&quot;60&quot;&gt;Good&lt;/option&gt;&lt;option value=&quot;40&quot;&gt;Quite good&lt;/option&gt;&lt;option value=&quot;20&quot;&gt;Not so great&lt;/option&gt;&lt;/select&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;input type=&quot;hidden&quot; name=&quot;edit[nid]&quot; id=&quot;edit-nid&quot; value=&quot;34684&quot;  /&gt;
&lt;input type=&quot;submit&quot; name=&quot;op&quot; value=&quot;Submit&quot;  class=&quot;form-submit&quot; /&gt;
&lt;input type=&quot;hidden&quot; name=&quot;edit[form_id]&quot; id=&quot;edit-rating-form-34684&quot; value=&quot;rating_form_34684&quot;  /&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/form&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/america_world/dan_rather#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/editorial_tags/democracy_power">democracy &amp;amp; power</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/columns/america_26.jsp">america inside out</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/taxonomy/term/53">Original Copyright</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/taxonomy/term/1964">Sidney Blumenthal</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:09:58 +0100</pubDate>
 <dc:creator />
 <guid isPermaLink="false">34684 at http://www.opendemocracy.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
