Skip to comments.CBS bosses hiding truth - Dan Rather
Posted on 02/27/2008 6:39:27 AM PST by abb
Dan Rather slammed CBS Tuesday for trying to keep his court fight with the network out of the public eye.
The newsman - who has filed a $70 million lawsuit against the Tiffany network, where he anchored the "CBS Evening News" for 24 years - said "corporate overlords" are conspiring to withhold several key documents.
The 76-year-old was back in Manhattan Supreme Court for a hearing on his suit, which accuses CBS of sidelining him to make nice with the White House following a September 2004 report that questioned President Bush's Vietnam-era military service.
Rather left the anchor's chair in March 2005 and was limited to being a bit player on "60 Minutes" before departing from CBS.
"It is a fact that corporate overlords working in secret collusion with the powers in Washington are intruding far too often in far too many newsrooms," he said.
The documents that Rather wants to see include a CBS-commissioned private investigator's report that he believes could back up his version of the disputed story about Bush's stint in the Texas Air National Guard.
CBS said it is "absolutely confident" the documents support its position. "When and if there is a trial ... all such documents introduced at trial will be made public," the network said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Until Dano can explain that away, he’s toast.
My guess is CBS will be deposing Buckhead and Charles Johnson. At least they should get a free trip to NYC out of it.
Shh! You’ll summon the kittens of war.
BRING ON THE VIKING KITTIES!
Found that HERE:
Our only goal will be the Western Shore.
see yall later! off to work!
Dan, one thing nobody is keeping from us and it’s too bad is your TOTAL CRACK-UP BEFORE THE WORLD.
At last, a definition of exactly who "they" are...
rofl somebody post the cbs lotr tower pic please! rofl
There are links to this letter in the body of this.
I checked a couple of weeks ago and the letter is still on democrats.com.
Lukasiak Study Proves Bush Was Legally AWOL
Bill L. Burkett LTC (ret)
Air National Guard Commanding Officer
Re: "Deserter: The Story Of George W. Bush After He Quit The Texas Air National Guard" by Paul Lukasiak
I have reviewed the assumptions that Lukasiak had to use through the first 63 months of Bush's career - before Bush just quit and was transferred to an obvious records hold - and believe that his conclusions are correct.
I am still reviewing to make sure that the discipline of use of regulations (Title 10 of US Code versus Title 32 of US Code) was fully in line in every detail. The point of this discipline and its absolute requirement is that sometimes Title 10 regulations apply for active duty only and there are separate regs for the same subject under Title 32. Title 32 regulations would have been applied to 1LT Bush at any point throughout his career except while he was on active duty for a period longer than 30 days - which in this case primarily speaks of his flight training school.
This is an easy mistake to make either with or without malice.
The analysis of months 63-72 is going to largely be speculative at best. But there are numerous excellent points made within his findings that indicate that without a doubt there was complicity from individuals and possibly commanders or staff at Camp Mabry to provide a cover; or more for 1LT Bush. I have noticed the rationale applied by Al Lloyd within his interviews has been that Bush just got tired of coming to drill and just quit. That may be true from the perspective of 1LT Bush. However, it does not explain the reasons for inactivity and failure to do what was right under the law and regulations by his superiors including the Adjutant General of Texas.
So let me answer the appropriate questions directly:
1. Lukasiak's work properly applies the uniform regulations of the Department of the Air Force and the national Guard Bureau to establish and conduct a detailed analysis of the service records of 1LT Bush.
2. Lukasiak properly applies a progressive records review that is developed from a detailed review of 1LT Bush's records. Within this foundation, he has properly developed a method to understand clearly the detailed methodology applied by the Texas Air National Guard within its proper recording, and found that for the first four years of a six year contract commitment, 1LT Bush performed to official standards; and that the Texas Air National Guard applied all normal standards to document satisfactory service.
3. Irregularities are first noticed within year five of 1LT Bush's records and are correctly detailed within Lukasiak's work. He correctly notes that during a five month period, directly correlating to a period in which the administrative file indicates that 1LT Bush had requested to first attend drill in Alabama [which was denied due to incompatible occupational code]; later to have requested a transfer to Alabama [which was never effected by records of the file]; and later completed no training at all. A later period of almost back-to-back drills as recorded both within drill performance certificates and payroll records were exactly calculated to meet the absolute minimum number of "retirement points" required rather than to meet the absolute minimum of training required for satisfactory drill participation. This certainly was not a coincidence, but rather indicates either a calculated effort on behalf of 1LT Bush or a scheme that included others. There are other questionable inconsistencies noted by Lukasiak.
After reviewing the work, I believe that the minimum and now fully documented findings are:
1. 1LT George W. Bush, the Texas Air National Guard and the Department of the Air Force fully concur through submitted documentation that:
a. 1LT Bush met all minimum standards of performance; including both inactive duty for training and active duty years 1-4 of his six year contract commitment.
b. 1LT Bush failed to meet the minimum satisfactory drill participation requirements of 48 single unit training assemblies (SUTA) inactive duty and 15 days of annual training per training year, with the year beginning in the month of the airman's birth. 1LT Bush in fact, completely failed to train as ordered for a five consecutive month period in Year five of his contract commitment and therefore was 20 SUTA's short of his minimum satisfactory training contract for said year. Claims by campaign officials have not been substantiated by 1LT Bush, the Texas Air National Guard or the Department of the Air Force or by official and complete records provided through a privacy release by the airman. Further there has been no record presented of any effort by the airman to have his records corrected with documentation provided by an alternate source such as tax returns or other documentation through the records correction process; notably the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).
c. 1LT Bush also failed to meet the minimum satisfactory training requirements of his contract during year six of his contract; without documentation of any sort, completely ceasing showing up for drills or active duty with the Texas Air National Guard as ordered. After month 62 of his 72 month contract, 1LT Bush was placed in a records hold awaiting discharge, a process not accorded to other soldiers or airmen under a time of War or pursuant to the regulations as cited within the study of Lukasiak.
Was 1LT George W. Bush AWOL? The use of terms such as Deserter or AWOL have often been used as the focus of debate rather than the actions and inactions of 1LT Bush, to the discredit of the actual events and their impact. Documentation has refuted all claims that 1LT Bush continued to meet either the published regulations requirements for satisfactory drill participation, or the orders of his commander LTC Jerry Killian who later within the Officer Evaluation process notes that 1LT Bush was not available or seen during that rating period - a period of twelve months. Failure to appear as ordered is certainly considered as Absent without Leave.
It would be interesting to see the actual morning reports for the unit which have been destroyed and see how the training NCOs carried Bush for pay. The only options are Absent, Absent excused, Absent Leave, Absent without leave, split training, or present. Since we have determined that he was not present for training or pay, we are all guessing about his status until we see that he had requested a transfer, then a split training certificate. This is purely speculation on my part, but I believe he may have initially been carried as Absent excused (which does not relieve him of his contract training responsibility) on the morning report while the unit was under the impression that he was trying to get a transfer.
I am sure that after that status changed through both inaction and confusion by the lieutenant, that the status was changed for a couple of months to split training authorized. But in both cases, and especially in split training status, an airman or lieutenant clearly understood that he was ordered to make contact with the receiving unit, conduct training as ordered and insure that such training was documented with a split training certificate. Further, whenever 1LT Bush reported in to the receiving unit, he would have been noted on the morning report as "split training" and the associated copy of the training certificate signed by the receiving unit commander would be forwarded for pay purposes.
Having been a commander, it seems totally impossible that if 1LT Bush met any of these requirements or showed any effort whatsoever, that LTC Jerry Killian would have made his now famous remarks on the Officer Efficiency Report. To answer the question unequivocally, was 1LT Bush AWOL? In exacting terms, the answer is yes. 1LT Bush was not present for duty as ordered, he was therefore absent without leave (AWOL).
I have found no documentation from LTC Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to either cover for the failures of 1LT Bush, or to provide him pay or certification for training not completed. On the contrary, LTC Killians' remarks are rare, indeed, especially considering that 1LT Bush was known clearly as a congressman's son and had utilized his position as such, to gain a favor of his failure to train while in Alabama. I have to believe that earning that favor was completed by false pretenses also due to LTC Killian's officer evaluation comment.
Documentation of complicitous activity may have surfaced within the flurry of drill training activity following the Alabama period. The exact and irrefutable evidence of such is not convincing, yet to me based upon a review of the same records, though there are serious changes within the methodology employed both at the unit and at State headquarters for 1LT Bush. It could be argued that this could have occurred by a wake up call at all levels sounded by LTC Killians comments and the justifications he would have been required at higher levels of command to make such comments.
This is my preliminary comments. I hope to have more detail within my verification of the files especially on all months past month 56.
YES, YES, YES...
I'll have what she's having.
This is a link to the Burkett letter on democrats.com.
This is a link to the Burkett letter on democrats.com, showing Burkett was working with democrats on these files.
You got caught, OK?
The jig is up.
The fat lady has sung.
Elvis has left the building.
Your career is dead.
...road kill on the highway of television news.
Hiding the truth about a lie.
Dan seems to think that charges of being AWOL stateside are more serious than charges of lying to Congress in a time of war about war crimes witnessed and participated in, subverting the war by meeting with the enemy to “negotiate” a peace settlement on foreign soil, etc.
Rather used to boast of experimenting with drugs like LSD and heroin. Has he tried any of the new things like crack, X, or meth?
I also found the original files on democrats.com, which shows they were not faxed to anyone.
The “documents” are the same on that site, as used by CBS.
They went from there directly to CBS as computer files.
If they had been faxed to someone, there would be small differences in the faxed documents.
Burkett claimed he didn’t know the source of the documents.
That is untrue, he helped prepare them.
“How soft your fields so green,
Can whisper tales of gore,
Of how we calmed the tides of war.
We are your overlords.”
Dan’s going down...
I hear Dan has his own e-Bay store where he sells a signiture line of tinfoil hats...
Ahhh payback is beautiful. So long Dan...........LOL
“The interesting thing is, Rather may be right. “
thanks for making a well-written point that I was thinking but couldn’t articulate well. He may very well be right, as I suspect the degree of network/media collusion with numerous governments (including ours) would boggle the mind of all but the most cynical freepers.
Newscaster Kent Brockman:
“I, for one, welcome our new Corporate Overlords.”
Never get in the way of your enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves.
“It is a fact that corporate overlords working in secret collusion with the powers in Washington are intruding far too often in far too many newsrooms,” he said.
A key point that people here seem to be missing (not that any of the criticism is wrong, just incomplete) is how this really shows his fundamental problem as a “journalist.” He states “it is a fact that” and then follows with a statement that is clearly an opinion.
It may be the case that there is a conspiracy between the “powers in Washington” and “many newsrooms.” Well it obviously isn’t the case if the “powers in Washington” are the Bush administration, but assuming it’s hypothetically true, the statement that it’s happening “too often” or in “too many” newsrooms meets the standard definition of opinion.
After 50+ years in “journalism” Dan Rather apparently still doesn’t understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.
while possibly true with the Klintonistas, nothing could be farther from the truth during the Bush presidency (except perhaps in the State dept. still rife with Klintonistas. Dan Rather was not just an 'anchor for CBS News', he was the posterchild for SeeBS Smooze.
Throw Jimmuh Carter in that pot o’ stew, for good measure.
HA HA HA
DR cBS speaks.
I think CBS is trying to cover up the fact that they employed Dan Rather.
Good catch. His thinking is messed up.
not paranoia. typical projection.
Dan really needs to be in a rubber room.
We don’t have a government run media but we have the next closest thing, a media marketplace that regularly colludes with the Democrat party on stories.
The media is the house organ of the DNC’s daily talking points.
The media should not be sponsoring ALL of the debates that we are seeing, they’ve got a side.
The debates should’ve been non-partisan. Mix it up more. Ask EVERY candidate the same question, go ahead and put the Democrats and Republicans on the same stage (or in separate studios). Put a mix of known conservatives as well as known liberals on the panel. NO “public” questions, the PACs had infiltrated them.
If it was ‘fair’ for liberal activists and Democrat staffers to ask questions as the GOP primary debates then it would’ve been just as fair for Doug From Upland to likewise grill the Democrats.
I don’t need to see the candidates giving me “spontaneous” prerehearsed statements, put them in separate studios to answer questions the way game show contestants do. “Isolation” booths. I don’t care. I want to compare the answers the candidates give, I don’t want to hear candidate C tearing apart candidate A’s answer. Give me your OWN independent answer. Comment on the OTHER candidates answers AFTER the debate.
I realize this is a “survey” format and not a debate but these aren’t debates EITHER. They are short format interviews where the candidates are permitted time to comment on one candidate’s answer.
First exposed here at Free Republic by Buckhead.
“CBS bosses hiding truth - Dan Rather”
It takes one to know one, Dan!