Posted on 9/15/2004, 8:13:53 PM by Eva
STUNNING DEVELOPMENT: DAN RATHER SPEAKS [09/15 03:59 PM]
From the New York Observer:
Since 60 Minutes reported on those documents on Wednesday, Sept. 8, their veracity has been assaulted by Web critics, politicians and document experts who put the burden of proof on Mr. Rather, his producers and on CBS News, and say that the reputation of the news organization is at stake. Mr. Rather asserted that the lack of denial was itself evidence of the essential truth of his findings. The questions raised by his reporting, he said, have remained unanswered by the Bush administration: Did Mr. Bush get preferential treatment for the Texas Air National Guard? Was then-Lieutenant Bush suspended for failing to perform up to Texas and Air Guard standards? Did then-Lieutenant Bush refuse a direct order from his military superior to take a required examination?
"It’s never been fully, completely denied by the Bush-Cheney campaign or even the White House that he was suspended for meeting the standards of the Air Force or that he didn’t show up for a physical," he said. "The longer we go without a denial of such things—this story is true."
On Friday, Sept. 10, Mr. Rather said on the CBS Evening News that he believed that some of the criticism came from people who were "partisan political operatives," implying that right-wing elements have managed to turn the story into a referendum on the story itself—and thus on Mr. Rather, a longtime target of conservative critics.
Mr. Rather said that the focus on questions over the veracity of the memos was a smoke screen perpetrated by right-wing allies of the Bush administration.
"I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of the story," he said. "If you can’t deny the information, then attack and seek to destroy the credibility of the messenger, the bearer of the information. And in this case, it’s change the subject from the truth of the information to the truth of the documents.
"This is your basic fogging machine, which is set up to cloud the issue, to obscure the truth," he said.
Mr. Rather said that he and his longtime CBS producer, Mary Mapes, had investigated the story for nearly five years, finally convincing a source to give them the National Guard documents. He did not reveal the name of the source, but Mr. Rather said he was a man who had been reluctant to come forth with them because he’d been harassed by political operatives. "Whether one believes it or not, this person believed that he and his family had been harassed and even threatened," he said. "We were not able to confirm that, but his fear was that what had already been threats, intimidation, if he gave up the documents, could get worse—maybe a lot worse."
...
Mr. Rather said that it would require an exceptional amount of knowledge to craft a forgery—and not just the typographical kind. "You’d have to have an in-depth knowledge of Air Force manuals from 1971," he said. "You’d have to have Bush’s service record, you’d have to have the Air Force regulations from 1971, you’d have to know nearly all of the people involved directly at that time, including the squadron commander, who was Bush’s immediate superior, and his attitude at the time—you’d have to know all those things and weave all those things in."
Mr. Rather said he was well aware of reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post that had finely detailed examinations of inconsistencies in the memos. And he said he took those reports seriously and appreciated the "competitive response" of other news organizations. But despite a number of experts calling the memos forgeries, he said that "the truth of these documents lies in the signatures and in the content, not just the typeface and the font-style. Let me emphasize once again, these are not exact sciences. Not like DNA or fingerprints."
That was why, he said, half of the experts agreed and the other half didn’t. That supposed stalemate left nothing but the truth at the center of the documents.
"In terms of the experts, you’re going to find an equal number of experts on the authenticity arguments," he said. "I don’t think that’s going to resolve the argument. The core truth of the reporting, I think it’s already clear that it’s true. And I think as time goes along, it will become even more apparent."
What about the Washington Post story of Sept. 14? The story pointed to discrepancies in military language, between the way Killian usually signed his letters and his signature on the memos CBS put on the air. And what about Mr. Bush’s address on one memo, "5000 Longmont #8, Houston," where he apparently no longer lived in 1972?
"Both of the allegations are wrong," he said. "I feel confident in saying that."
But when asked to offer a specific rebuttal to the observation about the address, Mr. Rather didn’t have one, saying only: "It’s our position, and I believe we demonstrated it …. The address doesn’t match the Bush service time frame—that’s their basic allegation? We think that’s wrong. We took a look at this, and we just think they’re wrong about it."
Mr. Rather brought up Mr. Hodges, the former National Guard major who CBS News relied on to verify the contents of Killian’s memo. Mr. Hodges, a Bush supporter, had since declared the documents forgeries. "He doesn’t think the documents are real," said Mr. Rather. "As far as I can tell, he didn’t deny that they sounded familiar to him. If he did, he didn’t confirm it to The New York Times."
And what if it was discovered that the documents were indeed forged?
"If," said Mr. Rather, reiterating "if," "if at any time we’re able to come up with information that demonstrates that we’re wrong, we’ll report it. We won’t wait. But I don’t think it’s going to happen. The story is true."
Mr. Rather said that he and Ms. Mapes had heard about the National Guard memos as long ago as 1999.
"We eventually came in contact with somebody who said he knew about the documents, and it took a while to get in contact with the man who was supposed to have had the documents," he said. "It took a long time for us to create a reportorial relationship with him in which he trusted us, and at the same time we were checking him out to see if he was a trustworthy person."
This is huge. Read the whole thing.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
He's obviously mentally ill. On-air Meltdown to follow.
Licorice: "The Widow Heinz was right.
She almost threw me out the window but said
that Gunga Dan is probably looking for the real forger.".
"I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of the story," he said. "If you can’t deny the information, then attack and seek to destroy the credibility of the messenger, the bearer of the information. And in this case, it’s change the subject from the truth of the information to the truth of the documents.Translation: It's not the lack of evidence that's important, but the seriousness of the charges.
No. This is from the Kerry Spot quoting a NY Observer article. That article has been posted on FR.
Rather and cBS are saying that President Bush has the burden of proof?
How Maxist of them....
Rather wouldn't bother me so much if he called himself a "Democratic Media Consultant" but he insists on this shoe-leather and suspenders "I'm just a reporter" routine.
Oh brother, that's his defense?
Wow...talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Worse defense ever.
Remember what I have been saying, they cannot back away from the charges because it would spoil their October surprise, the accusation that the real reason that Bush was grounded was cocaine use. The allegation is based on another memo which indicates that another pilot was grounded at that time for drug use and that was why Bush skipped the physical. I am told that drug testing didn't start until 1981, though.
So the stonewalling continues. I hope it lasts until election day. Every day Rather/CBS totes this line is worth an additional 5,000 votes for Bush.
The hardened heart of a partisan journalist. He just can't let it go, even if it is in the interest of self AND truth to do so.
It is our position, Danny boy, that your position is right there among the dog excrement on the sidewalks of NYC waiting to be stepped in.
Our hope is that the pedestrans along that stretch of sidewalk are fortunate enough to step in the dog shit.
He can say that again.
This is great. This keeps the issue alive. Not just for now, but for at least another week. Maybe longer. Another month. Meanwhile, the clock is running down on the campaign playing field, George Bush is ahead, he has the ball, he is running one smoothly executed play after another, picking up yardage here, yardage there, and the poor ol' Johns can't even run their own defense since it's been taken over by a blithering old idiot of a has-been cantankerous horses-patoot of an "anchor man" who won't leave the playing field and get out of the way of the game.
This is great.
Truly great stuff.
So, he is suggesting their source is Burkett. Doubtful as Burkett was discredited in the 2000 election, but the timeline is right.
If you want to find the originals of the documents:
Start -> Programs -> Microsoft Word
FILE -> Open Recent
You just have to be sitting at Dan Rather's, or maybe Mary Mapes's, computer to do it.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Drug screening was NOT done during regularly scheduled physicals. It is done randomly and without warning, at least in the Navy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.