One night I blogged Dan Rather in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
Posted on 09/19/2004 7:12:06 AM PDT by hiho hiho
It's probably important to say this up front: This year's presidential election shouldn't be about George W. Bush's four years in the Texas Air National Guard or John F. Kerry's four months in Vietnam. We shouldn't be even talking about these issues in the middle of today's war on terror.
For good or ill, the public will judge the Bush on his almost four years as commander-in-chief. And, however heroic or unheroic Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam may have been, it's hard to discern what his four months of military action has to do with the issues facing us almost 40 years later. Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth think it's important. They've certainly earned the right to raise the issue, if they want. But the rest of us have better campaign issues to discuss.
So let's not pretend CBS's Bush-National Guard story has anything to do with the substance of this presidential campaign. It may, however, tell you more than you need to know about the corruption or politicization of a once great news organization.
How else to explain the whole approach of "60 Minutes" and Dan Rather to the "papers" of long-dead Lt. Col. Jerry Killian? It's impossible to believe CBS conspired with the source of the almost certain forgeries. It's more likely that a "Get Bush" newsroom culture compromised professional checks and standards and allowed the network to be had. Whatever its documents experts said -- whatever countervailing evidence there was to cast doubt on the claims of Bush's accusers -- the story just had to be true. CBS wanted to believe. That seems to be the network's position even today.
Forget the questions about the typography, fonts, special characters and content of the blockbuster documents. Forget that CBS ignored the warnings of the documents experts it consulted. All this is damning enough. But you don't need to be a documents gumshoe to detect something fishy about CBS' whole approach to its big scoop -- and perhaps news gathering generally.
When the Washington Post asked CBS about the fact that their lead expert was saying he never authenticated the documents, a CBS spokesman had this curious response, "In the end, the gist is that it's inconclusive," said Sandy Genelius. "People are coming down on both sides, which is to be expected when you're dealing with copies of documents."
So, the documents might be true -- and they might not be true. CBS' new standard: Whatever.
Then the next day, with more evidence the documents were bogus, Rather urged Bush just to answer the questions raised by the documents. Let's see if we've got this right: Charges are leveled in documents that may or may or may not be bogus -- whatever -- and the targeted public official is obliged to respond to the charges?
And journalism mandarins worry about the blogosphere and talk radio.
Finally, Rather and company tried what the Nixon White House would have called a "modified, limited hang-out." While admitting questions have been raised about the memos and promising to "redouble its efforts" to probe the documents, the network featured a Killian secretary, Marian Carr Knox, on "60 Minutes" this week.
Knox said she believes the documents were phonies, but that didn't seem to matter. She and Rather insisted that the view the documents expressed was correct. Knox then told Rather she "feels" that young Bush received special treatment.
Which is curious enough. Maybe the documents are fake, but at least their "thrust" is correct. And CBS is now leveling charges on someone's feelings. But there's more. There's what CBS failed to tell viewers about this 86-year-old former secretary with feelings.
One, that she has made quite clear she opposes Bush's re-election. She has told the Dallas Morning News that the president was "unfit for office" and "selected, not elected."
Two, that the people who might be expected to know Killian's true view of Bush -- his widow, Marjorie Connell, and his son, Gary -- say Killian, in fact, had a high regard for Bush.
Three, that the week before Knox appeared on "60 Minutes" she told the Houston Post that "she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard."
Would I want to defend a politically charged and widely discredited story with a source such as Marian Knox?
Rather not.
You know, there is a reason why we are so focused on Vietnam. The left is asking us to make the same mistake again. Not asking, demanding. And it has put up the same guy that led us down that rat hole the last time as their idea of who should lead the way!
the "modified, limited hang-out" from the Watergate era. Wow, he took me back with that one. Excellent article.
Kenneth has painted himself into a corner which will be his legacy. Excellent.
Great observation.
I just picked myself off the floor...this came from the Oregonian? Good God!!! I really don't know what to say......I'm going to chisel this date in stone....
My wife is speehless....they should print more articles like this......
"Allowed the network to be had", my @ss.
I was just having similar thoughts. CBS is going to find itself standing alone on this one. There's barely time left for them to save themselves by jettisoning Rather.
"Three, that the week before Knox appeared on "60 Minutes" she told the Houston Post that "she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard.""
I think this statement has not been may public enough to the mainstream media,....the week before she no firsthand knowledge, but on the 60min2 interview she spoke in great detail about it.... one more though FoxNEWS this morning(I missed his name) who said Rather, and crew are in Texas now trying to talk the source into coming on TV, and tell what docs are true and which are fake.... that is incredible.
Really? Impossible to believe?
It's more likely that a "Get Bush" newsroom culture compromised professional checks and standards and allowed the network to be had. Whatever its documents experts said -- whatever countervailing evidence there was to cast doubt on the claims of Bush's accusers -- the story just had to be true. CBS wanted to believe. That seems to be the network's position even today.
And this is precisely the reason CBS collusion with the forger is believable.
It never hurts to send a letter or e-mail of praise for a piece that we all appreciate:
David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com
How do I write a Letter to the Editor?
letters@news.oregonian.com
Hmm, a perky blonde RAT surrogate was on Fox this am, parroting the Karl Rove did it line. She was giggling, but even the dumbest viewer knew she was hoping he'd buy it.
What I meant to write was
And this is precisely the reason CBS collusion with the source of the forgeries is believable
"It's impossible to believe CBS conspired with the source of the almost certain forgeries. It's more likely that a "Get Bush" newsroom culture compromised professional checks and standards and allowed the network to be had."
Actually, this is absolutely wrong. In the absence of contemporaneous preconception that CBS is trustworthy (a preconception I fail to share), one could reach no other conclusion than that CBS intentionally foisted these fraudulent documents on the public. All roads lead back toRather. They came from Texas. Rather comes from Teaxas. They came from Harris Courty. Rather and his daughter hve ties to Harris County. Rather hates the Bushes. The documents were meant to hurt the Bushes. The documents were not vetted. Rather was responsible for vetting. When questioned, Rather defended them and attached his critics.
What other facts would it take to make Rather the most likely suspect in this crime? A draft of the forgery being faxed from Rather to Texas? People have gone to prison with less circumstantial evidence than there is against Rather.
For good or ill, the public will judge the Bush on his almost four years as commander-in-chief.
Oh, well -- at least he didn't write, "the Shrub"...
One night I blogged Dan Rather in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
I wonder how much time in the federal pen G. Gor-Dan Rather will get.
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.