This was from the story
Dan Rather To Bush: ‘Answer The Questions’
by Joe Hagan
"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.
"I say that with respect," he added. "They’d be a lot stronger in their campaign if they did do that."
On Tuesday, Sept. 14, Mr. Rather remained steadfast despite a brutal onslaught of criticism from Bush defenders—including Laura Bush—critics and competing news organizations over the authenticity of memos reportedly typed by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Mr. Bush’s squadron commander in the early 1970’s, which suggested that Killian felt pressure from his superior to "sugarcoat" negative evaluations of the future President’s performance.
Since 60 Minutes reported on those documents on Wednesday, Sept. 8, their veracity has been assaulted by Web critics, politicians and document experts who put the burden of proof on Mr. Rather, his producers and on CBS News, and say that the reputation of the news organization is at stake.
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."
On Friday, Sept. 10, Mr. Rather said on the CBS Evening News that he believed that some of the criticism came from people who were "partisan political operatives," implying that right-wing elements have managed to turn the story into a referendum on the story itself—and thus on Mr. Rather, a longtime target of conservative critics.
Mr. Rather said that the focus on questions over the veracity of the memos was a smoke screen perpetrated by right-wing allies of the Bush administration.
"I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of the story," he said. "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.
Mr. Rather said that he and his longtime CBS producer, Mary Mapes, had investigated the story for nearly five years, finally convincing a source to give them the National Guard documents. He did not reveal the name of the source, but Mr. Rather said he was a man who had been reluctant to come forth with them because he’d been harassed by political operatives. "Whether one believes it or not, this person believed that he and his family had been harassed and even threatened," he said. "We were not able to confirm that, but his fear was that what had already been threats, intimidation, if he gave up the documents, could get worse—maybe a lot worse."I have watched this entire thing play out, and I have tried to get enough info before I made a judgement. The thing with this entire story is that so far
almost nobody believes the documents are legit. I have watched CNN, MSNBC, Fox, the Sunday programs etc., and it is almost unanimus that the documents are not legit. Nobody but CBS is willing to take a stand on their legitimacy, and even CBS won't respond to any specific questions about them.
Now I didn't buy into the Swifties charges, they just didn't convince me. One thing about the Swifties is that the guys making the charges came out and made their charges to the public. They were prepared to take their hits, and they attempted to justify their statements. Most people didn't buy them, but you knew who they were. This is totally different. CBS has all of these unnamed sources, and all these disputed documents, and they just stonewall all of it.
I have a hard time trying to describe Rather's approach in the article. He is defiant, paranoid, in denial, and making really inflammitory statements for someone of his stature and credibility. When I read this I thought it was a bogus deal, someone poking fun at Rather, like The Onion does. The NY Observer is a legit paper, so I assume it is true, but it is still hard to believe.
First he refuses to acknowledge the challenge to the legitimacy of the documents. He trys and trys to throw everything into Bush's lap. He says
"With respect: answer the questions,". "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." There is almost no one who believes the documents are legit, but Rather is demanding Bush to answer the questions raised by the documents.
Then he says
"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."By that logic someone could make up a document supposedly signed by John Kerry that says he was the real Boston Strangler, and if Kerry didn't deny it then that proves he is the Boston Strangler. :crazy:
I wonder if Rather really understands how what he is saying applies equally to himself. There are all sorts of people who are challenging his story and evidence, and if you refuse to provide anything to support your position then I guess "The longer we go without a denial of such things—this story is true." So by that logic I guess that means Rather's story must be considered totally bogus.
Then he goes off on a conspiracy rant. :crazy:
"I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of the story," he said. "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."If you can't deny the information"
?. The reality is all sorts of people are doing nothing but denying the veracity of the evidence. Bush cannot prove that Killien didn't write a memo making the statements, the ol you can't prove a negative, but he can make a very credible case that this memo is bogus and just about everybody is. To turn this into some sort of "Right Wing Conspiriacy" with a bunch of rants is really pathetic.
The part that is really shocking to me is this.
Mr. Rather said he was a man who had been reluctant to come forth with them because he’d been harassed by political operatives. "Whether one believes it or not, this person believed that he and his family had been harassed and even threatened," he said. "We were not able to confirm that, but his fear was that what had already been threats, intimidation, if he gave up the documents, could get worse—maybe a lot worse."He is making statements that Bush's "operatives" were making threats, and intimidating the source, and that it could get a lot worse if this person came forward. He makes these statements, and then he says they weren't able to confirm the threats etc. That to me is so far from what would be "high journalistic standards", making all sorts of statements about things you can't confirm. :crazy:
Based upon this and everything I have seen so far, I have to believe that Rather's career is imploding almost overnight.
