The above paragraph is from a story quoting Bob Schieffer of CBS. The quotes are from an press Q&A held yesterday. Schieffer was speaking somewhere out west and made these statements in a Q&A after his speech.
How can Schieffer be absolutely certain that someone was not setting up Dan Rather unless Schieffer knows the identity of the source.
How could anyone be certain that the CBS source was not setting up Dan Rather? Could Schieffer say that about a Republican Source? I don't think so. What about a source not openly connected to either campaign in any way? Lets say the source was a National Guard file Clerk who was charged with cleaning out old files and found them. If that file clerk came to CBS with the documents could Schieffer be certain it was not a set up?
The only possible way to be certain that the source was not trying to destroy Dan Rather is if the source's only possible motivation was to hurt George W. Bush's chances to be reelected. Such a person.. a person with zero reasons to get Dan Rather could only be a trusted, high level, Kerry campaign supporter.
If Schieffer KNOWS it was not a Rather setup, then Schieffer must know the identity of the source. And if he knows the source and it was not a Kerry campaign supporter, then Schieffer just led people to believe something that is not true.
The only logical conclusion from the Schieffer quote is it was a Kerry supporter.. and CBS was fooled by that Kerry Supporter.
What level of Kerry supporter must the source be for Schieffer to KNOW it was not a set up.
It has to be someone high in the Kerry campaign. Either that or Schieffer is lying.
One final thought. Schieffer says with out zero qualification that it was not an attempt to set up Rather. If he did not know who the source is, Schieffer would say I have been told by people I know and trust that the source was not out to set up Dan Rather. No one with as much news background as Schieffer would say what he said... He KNOWS It was not a set up. I find it interesting that the reporters who questioned Schieffer did not ask him .. if he knew who the identity of the source. I would have asked him how many people at CBS knew the source's identity.. and specifically if Schieffer knew.
I know if I were working at CBS, I would have NOT want to know the name of the source. Schieffer seems to be saying he knows the source. If a number of people at CBS do know the source it is only a matter of time until it is common knowledge.
Schieffer is saying the source is a Kerry person, and that the motivation of the source was to hurt Bush.
CBS is learning that putting the toothpaste back in the tube is very hard to do.
y Dad was a great interrogator in criminal cases. Dad spent many hours over many years teaching me his techniques. Here is one of his principles I have never forgotten.
Or, he knew it was put together by Dan Rather's daughter.
Or, he knew it was put together by Dan Rather's daughter.
the rumor from the beginning was that someone from the kerry-ites were saying they had those documents. but you know what ...everyone already knows that Bush wasnt an angel in his youth...hes said it. if this is the only thing that Kerry camp can come up with, they are in more trouble than we figured. if Bush was a new candidate it might count ..but we know what hes like as president ...so bring it on ...oops thats Kerrys phrase
Trite but true.
This is dead on.
My father was on the investigative (permission) side of ATF. His techniques were similar. He particularly liked to get responses in bits and pieces over time, so that the slips would show up. He was always smiling and interested in the lies someone was telling and would encourage them to elaborate on them. then, later, he would refer to it again and watch their responses.
I know a retired journalist whose interview technique is quite similar.