ROTFL! I hope he is only the first in a long line of biased "journalists" that get the heave ho!
I wonder if Rather won't have lots of time these days to get together with Aaron Brown and commisserate.
Brown was literally let go overnight to slot in Anderson Cooper. No improvement whatsoever, IMO. Both just as biased as we'd expect from the Clinton News Network.
In one of Rather's justification reports he said that on the day the report on the documents aired, that Rather had copies of the documents delivered to the White House with a request for the White House to comment.
When he contacted the White House several hours later the White House said it had no comment.
We also know that the White House had published the documents Rather had supplied on the White House web site the same day as the report aired. Why?
The question I have is why would the White House say it had no comment while putting the documents on the web?
The president had to know the information in the documents was not true. Once it was determined that the information could not be true wouldn't the white house have had those documents checked to see if they were fakes? It occurs to me that if Freeper Buckhead could figure out the documents were fake within a couple of hours, the white house could do it to.
Does it seem logical that the White House would put the documents on the white house web site for all to download, if they thought there was a chance the documents were real? I think the White House knew that the documents were fake and that the information contained in the documents were provable lies.
Why then would they tell Rather, "No Comment"?
Every bit of experience Rather had in Washington would lead him to believe that a "No Comment" was as good as a "I am guilty as charged!" response.Washington politicians have been denying guilt when they were guilty for hundreds of years. The denial may be colored a bit, but there is almost always a denial. A "NO COMMENT" would cause Rather to be certain he had Bush nailed.
I think that "No Comment" reply lead Rather to his "Fake but Accurate" response. Rather reasoned that the Documents may be fake, but if the contents were not true Bush would have yelled "THIS IS A BALD FACED LIE" at the top of his lungs when asked for comment. The white house would certainly not have replied with "No Comment".
Unless of course it was seen as an opportunity to nail Rather's hide to barn door.
I keep going back to 1988 when Dan Rather was as rude and nasty to George W. Bush's Dad as it is possible for a reporter to get. If Rather had done that to my Dad, I would look for every opportunity to pay the Blankety blank back.
I am not at all convinced that George W. Bush did not do exactly that.
I think at some point someone at CBS pointed out to DAN RATHER that he had been BUSH whacked. And that at CBS anchors that can be that easily BUSHwhacked can not be allowed to do anything except sit in his recently assigned closet... errr office.
Rather spent nearly 44 years being the screwer... only to find that when he tried to screw George W. Bush it was Rather who turned out to be screwee.
He is the LAST in the hold-over-from-the-60s-and-70s line: Brokaw, Jennings (RIP), and now Rather. Biased liberal bullsh*tters, all of them.