I have a HUGE problem with CBS and Dan Rather's attitude about this entire "Rathergate" Scandal. They seem to be saying that all of us ignorant plebs should just shut up and let them tell us what to think. Nowhere is this more apparent than in
this article in the New York Observer. I have some responses to a few parts of what Mr. Rather said.
"With respect: answer the questions," said Dan Rather, the CBS News anchor. He was asking a direct question to President George W. Bush, his re-election campaign and his political allies in the press and on the Web. "We’ve heard what you have to say about the documents and what you’ve said and what your surrogates have said, but for the moment, answer the questions.
Well, with respect Dan, what surrogates are you referring to? Instapundit? Hugh Hewitt? The Washington Post? USA Today? It's seems to me that none of the President's surrogates have addressed the documents issue until today, unless you count Laura Bush a day or so ago. Today you had some senators and congressmen weighing in, but the driving force behind this story isn't any political campaign, it's the new media and the blogosphere doing your job for you. The burden of prove for thirty year old accusations that are only tangentially related to the campaign lies squarely on your desk, pal. Oh, and by the way, not a single accusation in these is even new or even that damaging. We know he missed the physical and that he didn't fly in Alabama and the campaign explained why months ago.
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."
Uh, no Dan, until you prove it the story is
false. That's why they call the stuff "proof". Have you considered that, having denied these same allegations since he ran for Governor when I was in high school, Bush and his guys see these allegations as already addressed. I know it bugs you, but Bush really doesn't give a rats' hindquarters what you think about him and doesn't have to respond every time you sleaze him.
"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.
Dan, would you have run the story without the documents? (long uncomfortable pause) I didn't think so. Therefore, not so much true, is it?
If Mr. Rather’s defense sounded like a shout of "vast right-wing conspiracy," in this election year it was no longer as crazy as it sounded—particularly during a week when the Republican National Committee had already beat him to the conspiracy-mongering. When the Democratic National Committee launched a TV ad called "Fortunate Son" on Tuesday, Sept. 14, using a clip of Mr. Rather’s 60 Minutes sit-down with the former Lieutenant Governor of Texas, Ben Barnes, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee released a statement saying that "the video the Democrats released today is as creative and accurate as the memos they gave CBS."
Sure, the use of CBS News footage in an ad by the DNC is completely normal! They must have taped it when the show broadcast and then turned around and produced a major campaign video within a few days. This makes me really wish they had a "Sarcasm" font.
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."
Actually, Dan, the reason you were caught being a pathetic shill is that your forgery sucked! So, it's not exactly news to say that pulling off a forgery is hard. We know. You proved it.
"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."
Uh, Dan, pretty much ALL the experts say they are fake, including your own. Fake documents don't normally end up being true (that's usually why they have to be faked, you idiot).
…. These are unpleasant truths. But they are truths. There was and is no joy in reporting them. But part of what reporters are supposed to do is ask questions, dig for facts and, when truths are found, share them with the public and, when called upon to do so, speak truth to power. This we did. I think over the long haul, this will be consistent with our history and our traditions and reputation," he said. "We took heat during the McCarthy time, during Vietnam, during civil rights, during Watergate. We haven’t always been right, but our record is damn good."
Unfortunately, the aspect of this that rises to a Watergate level scandal is your duplicity Dan.
Cue the exit music.
RMR
