OT: Dan Rather $70M Suit To Hit Bush 'Legacy' Hard
Christopher A. Lee
Fred Stone
news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush
>
Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a fraud. Those
memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter, much less one that the
Texas Air National Guard unit might have had available. Rather is only
making a bigger fool of himself.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle"
Winston Churchill (1903)
duke
wrote:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush
Rather is suing CBS for firing him, not President George Bush.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush
>>
>
>Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a fraud. Those
>memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter, much less one that the
>Texas Air National Guard unit might have had available. Rather is only
>making a bigger fool of himself.
I have no idea whether it was accurate or not, but the people who
accused Rather of engaging in fraud have a less than stellar track
record. Why would any rational person believe their claims?
Fred Stone
news:43pgl45ift6nfo69t...@4ax.com:
Because they back them up with evidence.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>news:43pgl45ift6nfo69t...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 28 Dec 2008 23:36:06 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
>> in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bu
>>>> sh
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a fraud.
>>>Those memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter, much less one
>>>that the Texas Air National Guard unit might have had available.
>>>Rather is only making a bigger fool of himself.
>>
>> I have no idea whether it was accurate or not, but the people who
>> accused Rather of engaging in fraud have a less than stellar track
>> record. Why would any rational person believe their claims?
>>
>
>Because they back them up with evidence.
No, they did not. They backed it up with speculation.
Fred Stone
Sorry, Lunchie, but you are wrong. You can still check out the comparison
between what CBS provided and a plain MS-Word document typed with the
default settings. If that isn't sufficient evidence, then you are just as
impervious to the truth as any fundie.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/12526
ath...@home.com
wrote:
But why then would anyone believe Rather?
http://tinyurl.com/7h9gon
Of course just because a man will lie about some things it doesn't
follow that he will lie about everything.
However, once he has been exposed as a man who is willing to lie.
everything he says afterward has to be viewed with caution.
atheist@home#1554
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
I agree that the first doc was not typed.
Fred Stone
Rather himself called the documents fake.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Sorry, Lunchie, but you are wrong. You can still check out the
> comparison between what CBS provided and a plain MS-Word document
> typed with the default settings. If that isn't sufficient evidence,
> then you are just as impervious to the truth as any fundie.
>
> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/12526
Yeah, no computer in the world could emulate Times New Roman.
Not only that but a digital representation of a copy of an analog document
would look totally different than a digital representation of a digital
copy.
Besides everybody knows that all fax and copy machines are analog devices.
Odd isn't it Rather is to dumb to use a real typewriter to forge a document
(or maybe type writers don't exist any more)
Odder still is that a little green football would discover this. You would
think that the US Government in association with the news agency could have
examined the original document and shown that it was a computer generated
document.
Oh wait, the FBI is in on it and they denied they had the ability to
identify a specific type writer based on wear patterns.
Fred's god is fading.
ath...@home.com
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush
>>
>
>Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a fraud. Those
>memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter, much less one that the
>Texas Air National Guard unit might have had available. Rather is only
>making a bigger fool of himself.
Rather is a fairly stupid man with an ego the size of Texas and an
over inflated sense of self importance.
He's also extremely gullible when it serves his purpose.
He believes what he wants to believe and I suspect he's worried about
his legacy at this point.
Remember "The Wall Within?"
"On June 2, 1988, Rather hosted a CBS News special, The Wall Within.
In it, he interviewed six former servicemen, each of whom said he had
witnessed horrible acts in Vietnam.
Two of the men said that they had killed civilians, and two others
said that they had seen friends die.
Each talked about the effects the war had upon their lives — including
depression, unemployment, drug use and homelessness.
In their book Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of
its Heroes and its History, authors B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley
said they had obtained the service records of all six men, documenting
where each was stationed during the Vietnam War.
According to the records, the authors said, only one of the men was
actually in Vietnam; he claimed to have been a 16-year-old Navy SEAL
but, said Burkett and Whitley, the records listed him as an equipment
repairer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather#The_Wall_Within
atheist@home#1554
Fred Stone
news:80W5l.62$FM6...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:
> Fred Stone wrote:
> <snip>
>> Sorry, Lunchie, but you are wrong. You can still check out the
>> comparison between what CBS provided and a plain MS-Word document
>> typed with the default settings. If that isn't sufficient evidence,
>> then you are just as impervious to the truth as any fundie.
>>
>> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/12526
>
> Yeah, no computer in the world could emulate Times New Roman.
> Not only that but a digital representation of a copy of an analog
> document would look totally different than a digital representation of
> a digital copy.
> Besides everybody knows that all fax and copy machines are analog
> devices.
>
WTF? That doesn't even make sense, Painter.
> Odd isn't it Rather is to dumb to use a real typewriter to forge a
> document (or maybe type writers don't exist any more)
>
> Odder still is that a little green football would discover this. You
> would think that the US Government in association with the news agency
> could have examined the original document and shown that it was a
> computer generated document.
>
> Oh wait, the FBI is in on it and they denied they had the ability to
> identify a specific type writer based on wear patterns.
>
Citation?
> Fred's god is fading.
>
Painter has gone senile.
ath...@home.com
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Fred Stone wrote:
> <snip>
>> Sorry, Lunchie, but you are wrong. You can still check out the
>> comparison between what CBS provided and a plain MS-Word document
>> typed with the default settings. If that isn't sufficient evidence,
>> then you are just as impervious to the truth as any fundie.
>>
>> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/12526
>
>Yeah, no computer in the world could emulate Times New Roman.
>Not only that but a digital representation of a copy of an analog document
>would look totally different than a digital representation of a digital
>copy.
>Besides everybody knows that all fax and copy machines are analog devices.
>
>Odd isn't it Rather is to dumb to use a real typewriter to forge a document
>(or maybe type writers don't exist any more)
I don't think anyone accused Rather of forging the document himself.
>Odder still is that a little green football would discover this. You would
>think that the US Government in association with the news agency could have
>examined the original document and shown that it was a computer generated
>document.
>
>Oh wait, the FBI is in on it and they denied they had the ability to
>identify a specific type writer based on wear patterns.
>
>Fred's god is fading.
Well, no.
Rather himself finally admitted the document was forged yet still
claims to have faith in it's accuracy.
Is it reasonable to accept the fact that a man forged a document in an
attempt to deceive, but to assume and then insist that the message
itself isn't deceptive?
We cannot force a thing to be true just because we want it to be and
when religionists do it we are all over them for their dishonesty or
talent for self delusion.
What's the difference here?
Rather, like so many others has a need to believe that it was true.
In his case however it's not just his visceral hatred of Bush that is
the issue but also his legacy as a journalist that is at stake.
atheist@home#1554
j-rod
How did B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley obtain the service records of
all six men?
JAM
ath...@home.com
It's public record.
There is an ongoing problem with men who claim to have been Navy SEALS
but it's not difficult to get the names of all the men who went
through BUD/S.
<There are in fact websites that list the names because of the
problem>
The men who are called out on it, whose names don't show up will
typically claim they were on missions so secret that their real names
were expunged from the records but that's not the way it works.
There are men who claim to have been awarded medals, including the
Medal Of Honor which is a violation of federal law and who have been
so good at their deception that some have even fooled military men.
Some even received treatment at VA hospitals.
Even President Johnson demanded and received an undeserved Silver Star
and every time he told the story about how he supposedly received it
he embellished it even more.
And there were stories by men who claimed they witnessed things in
Vietnam when they never served there and some who had never so much as
been in the military.
Some of them appeared before congressional committees with the Winter
Soldier hearings during the sixties being the most remembered.
The same has happened recently with men and women making claims about
Iraq.
I would highly recommend the book Stolen Valor.
It's a heck of an eye opener.
atheist@home#1554
towelie
That's hearsay. Evidence would be proving that Dumb Dumb actually showed up
to the NG and fulfilled his duties. Over 8 years now and they still haven't
produced evidence? That tells me that the Rather documents, whether they
were originals or facsimilies, were 100% accurate.
Fred Stone
news:M_KdnZTWN8mH3sXU...@centurytel.net:
> Fred Stone wrote:
>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>> news:pc6gl4ho8at5agma0...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 29 Dec 2008 00:16:58 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>>>> news:43pgl45ift6nfo69t...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Dec 2008 23:36:06 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsui
>>>>>>> t- bu sh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a
>>>>>> fraud. Those memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter,
>>>>>> much less one that the Texas Air National Guard unit might have
>>>>>> had available. Rather is only making a bigger fool of himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea whether it was accurate or not, but the people who
>>>>> accused Rather of engaging in fraud have a less than stellar track
>>>>> record. Why would any rational person believe their claims?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because they back them up with evidence.
>>>
>>> No, they did not. They backed it up with speculation.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, Lunchie, but you are wrong. You can still check out the
>> comparison between what CBS provided and a plain MS-Word document
>> typed with the default settings. If that isn't sufficient evidence,
>> then you are just as impervious to the truth as any fundie.
>
> That's hearsay.
That's ridiculous.
> Evidence would be proving that Dumb Dumb actually
> showed up to the NG and fulfilled his duties.
No, Lunchie, the burden of proof is on the accuser, which was Rather, who
failed through easily detected fraud.
> Over 8 years now and
> they still haven't produced evidence?
Not their problem.
> That tells me that the Rather
> documents, whether they were originals or facsimilies, were 100%
> accurate.
>
The above tells me that you would rather have faith in the eeevilitude of
Chimpy McHitlerBurton than deal with reality.
Kate
wrote:
Considering there was backup from witnesses at the time of the
document's contents, it was yet another red herring of the right and
Fred's chorus to scream hysterically about the document not being the
original.
Journalism requires a second source - this was provided and never
disputed.
Sorry Fred, the contents were validated, even if the document was a
copy. But never worry about facts, eh? They are just inconvient as
hell.
Fred Stone
news:497c46d8....@news-west.newscene.com:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:25:04 -0600, "towelie" <bugoN...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Fred Stone wrote:
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>>> news:pc6gl4ho8at5agma0...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Dec 2008 00:16:58 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>>>>> news:43pgl45ift6nfo69t...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Dec 2008 23:36:06 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsu
>>>>>>>> it- bu sh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a
>>>>>>> fraud. Those memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter,
>>>>>>> much less one that the Texas Air National Guard unit might have
>>>>>>> had available. Rather is only making a bigger fool of himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea whether it was accurate or not, but the people who
>>>>>> accused Rather of engaging in fraud have a less than stellar
>>>>>> track record. Why would any rational person believe their claims?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they back them up with evidence.
>>>>
>>>> No, they did not. They backed it up with speculation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, Lunchie, but you are wrong. You can still check out the
>>> comparison between what CBS provided and a plain MS-Word document
>>> typed with the default settings. If that isn't sufficient evidence,
>>> then you are just as impervious to the truth as any fundie.
>>
>>That's hearsay. Evidence would be proving that Dumb Dumb actually
>>showed up to the NG and fulfilled his duties. Over 8 years now and
>>they still haven't produced evidence? That tells me that the Rather
>>documents, whether they were originals or facsimilies, were 100%
>>accurate.
>>
>
> Considering there was backup from witnesses at the time of the
> document's contents, it was yet another red herring of the right and
> Fred's chorus to scream hysterically about the document not being the
> original.
>
Sorry, Kate, but the documents were never validated. There was no
"backup" from anybody who witnessed the production of the "original"
because the original was a fraud.
> Journalism requires a second source - this was provided and never
> disputed.
>
Yes, it was disputed. And it turned out that the "second source" was a
senile old lady in a nursing home.
> Sorry Fred, the contents were validated, even if the document was a
> copy. But never worry about facts, eh? They are just inconvient as
> hell.
>
Sorry Kate, but the documents were fake, no matter how loudly you shriek
that they were the real deal. But never worry about facts, Kate, because
there's always librul truthiness to fall back on so that you won't ever
have to face reality.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Of course that wasn't the entire report.
Still, Bush has proven himself to be corrupt and incompetent, you know
that. Why make excuses for him? He'll be the Democrats best argument
against the Republicans for the next two decades.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Keep defending Bush. No liberal in America wants to see the
conservatives turn against that fool.
j-rod
So, anyone can access mine, or anyone's, service records?
JAM
platothelapdog
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote innews:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
Information... sources please ??
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9B82BD39A2...@216.151.153.21> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush
>>
>
>Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a fraud. Those
>memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter, much less one that the
>Texas Air National Guard unit might have had available. Rather is only
>making a bigger fool of himself.
So you haven't bothered to look at the lawsuit, have you?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
ath...@home.com
Apparently so, at least to a degree.
The extent of the information they can get I don't know.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
Try Google.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
wrote:
Fred, you cannot convince anybody that a thing they have a need to
believe is true, is not, unless the truth matters more to them than
their illusions.
And you won't find that a lot in human beings, religious or otherwise.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
Which hysterical screaming?
I don't see any hysterics except for your frantic, overwrought
response to an opinion that you don't like.
And it's so typical for you to get really upset that anyone would
disagree with you.
You need to calm down.
All that excitement isn't good for you.
<snip>
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>Fred Stone wrote:
Not only was the document not an original it wasn't a facsimile.
It was a forgery.
We have a situation here that is similar to things said about all
leaders by those who are in opposition to them in that we have no
proof one way or the other as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the
claims.
All we have is gossip and a forged document.
Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't try to prove that Hillary didn't throw
a lamp at Bill in the private quarters of the White House because I
suspect they knew that those who choose to believe she did will
believe it no matter what they say and despite the fact that there are
no Secret Service agents in that part of the building to see much less
report such a thing.
Bill never defended himself against charges of rape made by certain
women.
Are they guilty as claimed because they haven't proven otherwise in
all these years?
And people who served with Bush, including at least one commander said
that he did fulfill his duties.
But that doesn't matter to Rather or to other people who hate Bush
because they need to have their hate validated.
And it's all so damned typically human.
atheist@home#1554
Fred Stone
4ax.com:
Our left-leaning friends are just as bad as any fundies in that regard.
Not that I'm immune to it either, but I try to keep an open mind.
duke
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 28 Dec 2008 23:36:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
><fsto...@earthling.com> in
><Xns9B82BD39A2...@216.151.153.21> wrote:
>
>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush
>>>
>>
>>Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a fraud. Those
>>memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter, much less one that the
>>Texas Air National Guard unit might have had available. Rather is only
>>making a bigger fool of himself.
>
>So you haven't bothered to look at the lawsuit, have you?
He's suing CBS for firing him.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Matt Silberstein
<duckg...@cox.net> in <3p0il4d309uumj996...@4ax.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:40:20 -0500, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On 28 Dec 2008 23:36:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>><fsto...@earthling.com> in
>><Xns9B82BD39A2...@216.151.153.21> wrote:
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a fraud. Those
>>>memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter, much less one that the
>>>Texas Air National Guard unit might have had available. Rather is only
>>>making a bigger fool of himself.
>>
>>So you haven't bothered to look at the lawsuit, have you?
>
>He's suing CBS for firing him.
Great. Try to explain the issues to Fred.
Fred Stone
news:ku5il4hapklt2vgag...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:04:53 -0600, in alt.atheism , duke
> <duckg...@cox.net> in <3p0il4d309uumj996...@4ax.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:40:20 -0500, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Dec 2008 23:36:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>>><fsto...@earthling.com> in
>>><Xns9B82BD39A2...@216.151.153.21> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>news:5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-
>>>>> bush
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dan Rather's phony report was a fraud in 2004 and it's still a
>>>>fraud. Those memos were never typed on any sort of typewriter, much
>>>>less one that the Texas Air National Guard unit might have had
>>>>available. Rather is only making a bigger fool of himself.
>>>
>>>So you haven't bothered to look at the lawsuit, have you?
>>
>>He's suing CBS for firing him.
>
> Great. Try to explain the issues to Fred.
>
Try to understand the Guardian article, Matt.
ath...@home.com
wrote:
Most people are that way, left and right.
It was a disturbing revelation for me and is more than a little
discouraging but facts are simply what they are and have to be
accepted or denied.
Frankly I'm sort of awed by it.
On the one hand it's funny and on the other frustrating.
But it's not going to change anytime soon.
Maybe in the next thousand years or so but given that it hasn't
changed much in the last million I doubt it.
atheist@home#1554
stoney
<ca...@optonline.net>, Message ID:
<5s2gl45nmollnknpp...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush
* Christopher Goodwin in Los Angeles
* The Observer, Sunday 28 December 2008
CBS newsman's $70m lawsuit likely to deal Bush legacy a new blow
As George W Bush prepares to leave the White House, at least one
unpleasant episode from his unpopular presidency is threatening to
follow him into retirement.
A $70m lawsuit filed by Dan Rather, the veteran former newsreader for
CBS Evening News, against his old network is reopening the debate over
alleged favourable treatment that Bush received when he served in the
Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war. Bush had hoped that
this controversy had been dealt with once and for all during the 2004
election.
Eight weeks before the 2004 presidential poll, Rather broadcast a story
based on newly discovered documents which appeared to show that Bush,
whose service in the Texas Air National Guard ensured that he did not
have to fight in Vietnam, had barely turned up even for basic duty.
After an outcry from the White House and conservative bloggers who
claimed that the report had been based on falsified documents, CBS
retracted the story, saying that the documents' authenticity could not
be verified. Rather, who had been with CBS for decades and was one of
the most familiar faces in American journalism, was fired by the network
the day after the 2004 election.
He claims breach of contract against CBS. He has already spent $2m on
his case, which is likely to go to court early next year. Rather
contends not only that his report was true - "What the documents stated
has never been denied, by the president or anyone around him," he says -
but that CBS succumbed to political pressure from conservatives to get
the report discredited and to have him fired. He also claims that a
panel set up by CBS to investigate the story was packed with
conservatives in an effort to placate the White House. Part of the
reason for that, he suggests, was that Viacom, a sister company of CBS,
knew that it would have important broadcasting regulatory issues to deal
with during Bush's second term.
Among those CBS considered for the panel to investigate Rather's report
were far-right broadcasters Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
"CBS broke with long-standing tradition at CBS News and elsewhere of
standing up to political pressure," says Rather. "And, there's no joy in
saying it, they caved ... in an effort to placate their regulators in
Washington."
Rather's lawsuit makes other serious allegations about CBS succumbing to
political pressure in an attempt to suppress important news stories. In
particular, he says that his bosses at CBS tried to stop him reporting
evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. According to Rather's
lawsuit, "for weeks they refused to grant permission to air the story"
and "continued to raise the goalposts, insisting on additional
substantiation". Rather also claims that General Richard Meyers, then
head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military official in the US,
called him at home and asked him not to broadcast the story, saying that
it would "endanger national security".
Rather says that CBS only agreed to allow him to broadcast the story
when it found out that Seymour Hersh would be writing about it in the
New Yorker magazine. Even then, Rather claims, CBS tried to bury it.
"CBS imposed the unusual restrictions that the story would be aired only
once, that it would not be preceded by on-air promotion, and that it
would not be referenced on the CBS Evening News," he says.
The charges outlined in Rather's lawsuit will cast a further shadow over
the Bush legacy. He recently expressed regret for the "failed
intelligence" which led to the invasion of Iraq and has received heavy
criticism over the scale and depth of the economic downturn in the
United States.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}