STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER (UPDATE: Statement released)

http://www.drudgereport.com ^ | Drudge

[TheGeezer]

Update by moderator:

EXCLUSIVE

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—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.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

[barker]

Rather is still going to make excuses and try to vouch for the authenticity of the story, ...

You bet he will. In his own words

"..... I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

He meant he would still have gone along with this story using a different angle. Instead he used the documents without question.

[Republican Red]

Yea , they are on the breaking point over there at CBS Evening News.

I called 212-975-3691

I asked when Rather would apologize to the President. The girl was very peeved and said I should go to the gym and work off my anger. Click.

She went to Customer Service Training Classes for sure.

Give them a call, they'll love it.

[HalleysFifth]

Disillusionment with a formerly admired figure is always a sad story. I've had a few as well. Thanks.

[MikefromOhio]

you dont say Dan....no $h!t!!!!

[Warren]

Rather should be honest enough to name the person who wrote the statement he read.

[jodorowsky]

Mark Twain.

[SandwicheGuy]

I think that was an oberservation on American politicians by our own Will Rogers.

[Turin_Turambar]

Right. Well. the point of my discussion of forgery is that there are usually TWO possible sources of criminal intent -- intent to affect legal rights is one, but intent to harm is another, and sufficient. Virginia would be a particularly hard-core jurisdiction because it keeps -- even in statutes -- the common-law rule that if you mess with "publick records" it doesn't matter, you're a crook. No death penalty for it anymore, though (sigh). They have a broad definition of public records, too. If the forgery took place in Texas, you might need to show the potential for harm to "another" (GWB). I think a Texas court wouldn't look too kindly on what has occurred ... The real fun is about to begin -- CBS has to give up the original author of the docs or they could get roped in on an obstruction of justice or conspiracy angle. By claiming that the "substance is true" they're worming their way out of intent to defraud. So the forger is guilty and CBS is (unless they get stupid... I mean stupider) in the clear.

Aha! But what about someone in the middle (i.e. Terry "Fortunate Son" McAuliffe, or other DNC/Kerry campaign hacks) who "vouches" for the documents or otherwise knowingly abets the presentation of a false document to poor old Gunga Dan? That's the puzzle, but in any event we need to nail the principal (the forger) and then any U.S. Attorney/Texas Prosecutor that really wants to make his career can get to work on making something stick to the intermediaries.

[NonValueAdded]

Interesting ... the 5 PM ET C^BS Radio News played Ra^ther's mini-apology. They then played the Bush campaign's statement that serious questions remain including whether or not the documents came from the Kerry campaign. The surprising part was that they ended with that statement, effectively leaving that question sitting there awaiting an answer. 'sup with that?

[finnigan2]

" Articles appears over the last week stating both the DNC and the Kerry Campaign were implicated."

- I think I read last week that USA Today and Newsweek both admitted receiving faxed copies of the same forgeries. Again, it would seem that after receiving advice from Max, Burkett decided to mail his forgeries to all and sundry in the hopes that someone, anyone, would bite. CBS did - but did they take advice from the DNC or Kerry camp in doing so? I bet if the Kinko records in Austin were examined, they would show that Burkett faxed them to all recipients from there at or on about the same date.

[HAL9000]

Although CBS obstructed the investigation in every way, it was commendable that they published the PDF documents on their website.

If CBS had followed the normal practice of the major news media, the reporter would just waved some papers in front of the camera, or flashed a illegible picture of the memo on the screen during their report. In the vast majority of cases, the networks do not provide a full scale electronic copy of their evidence on their websites.

If CBS had not taken the unusual step of web publishing the (phony) memos, their authenticity might not have been questioned.

Here is the big question - How many more forgeries would be uncovered if the news media followed a policy of web publishing the memos they cite in their reports?

If CBS News sincerely wants to restore their credibility, they should publish every document they rely on in their reports (unless it contains sensitive national security info, of course).

[hinckley buzzard]

"...misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers""

Huh. Since when was this the key question?

[self_evident]

It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Bull. I'm calling you, Dan Rather, a flat-out lier. You used a mentally unstable man who has a long-standing axe to grind with Bush as your document source. You interviewed your partisan Democrat buddy of 30 years. You coaxed a 80 year old lady to say the documents were "fake but accurate". That does not fit anyones definition of "good faith".

[RogueIsland]

Ah, the Dems on that "other site" have lost it. Check this out for a laugh:

"CBS is just a pawn of this corrupt administration. I'd bet that CBS did this to intentionally hurt Kerry's campaign. The worked with the White House and Karl Rove to discredit the Kerry campaign by preemptively bringing up *'s AWOL status. I bet that the Kerry campaign has the real memos, and CBS found out about them, so they rushed the "fake" memos story. That way, if the Kerry campaign brought out the real documents, they can be deemed fakes as well."

[BlessedByLiberty]

You are correct - evidently many news agencies (believe MSNBC also) had received the documents. Which begs the question, were they in receipt of the same docs after Max Cleland passed Burkett on to the Kerry camp?

Were the docs mailed to all and sundry after CBS swallowed the bait that coincided with their determination to defeat President Bush? Were MSM offered the docs or the information on more than one occasion?

USA Today (home to Michale Moore journalism) said they were in receipt of more than the docs CBS reported. Which begs the question I have not seen addressed, just how many of these "documents" and unimpeachable sources are there?

[woodb01]

Yes, the list is my own. Based on all of the issues that I am aware of in this mess that dnCBS has made...

Bill

[mwl1]

Thank you -- I found the quote and you are close... it was Mark Twain.

[mwl1]

Thank you very much. You are correct, 1897.

[claudiustg]

I could only find some references in Canadian and British election law. I think I was reading the Ohio case and latter some others and mistakenly thought the reference to fraud involving govermental functions came from the Ohio case.

I guess that's the end of my legal career! :^) Too bad!

[brityank]

Paid?? Where does it say that someone must be 'paid' to effect forgery?

Typical legal mumbo-jumbo; if there's no "money" involved there is no crime. Sorry. there are things called Principles -- as I said:

" I submit that the Vote you or I cast is worth much more than any banknote in the stead of freedom, and should be held as such."

And you wonder why the Legal 'Profession' is held in low esteem.