Dan Rather SUES!

[Alareth]

Dan Rather has filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS claiming that the Bush administration forced the network censor and cover up the Bush military record story that ended up causing Rather's resignation from the network.

The suit claims that his public apology was forced by CBS and led to the damage of his credibility and reputation.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/19/tv.ratherlawsuit.ap/index.html

[JoeEllison]

Sounds about right. After all, Rather's report was factually accurate, IIRC.

[quixotecoyote]

General opinion seems to be against him.

I submitted the following in a response to:
http://www.spacetropic.com/2007/09/return-of-darth-rather.html

Let's see if they allow it.



On what basis do you say that Dan rather 'still thinks the story is true'?

It seems like the whole thrust of his lawsuit is that his statements were true, but the basis for the story was false and he was hung out to dry for it.

As for your assault on his dignity:

I don't recall Dan Rather ever claiming to be in charge of CBS or the news. Cronkite wasn't in charge of the news before him, so I don't know why you have the perception that people expect an anchorman to head the news program. Saying that he loses dignity by showing that he wasn't in charge of an organization that no one could reasonably expect him to be in charge of is asinine.

Further, why would showing 'CBS and company are easy foils' hurt <i>his </i>dignity at all? His point is that he was doing his job, CBS dropped the ball when they fed him bad facts, and then blamed him. The whole point is that CBS messed up. Proving that would vindicate him and <i>restore</i> dignity.

[The Painter]

Some people just can't get over the 2000 election. Let it go Dan.

[JoeEllison]

Actually, my understanding of the case is that the story was basically true, as confirmed by sources close to the situation. The actual document used was a "forgery", or at least that's what was said about it. The speed at which it was decried as a forgery points to the slightly CT idea that it was intentionally given to CBS to discredit them, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate. Or, as I put it when the situation first started up: finding a counterfeit $100 bill doesn't mean that $100 bills aren't real.

Dan Rather was hung out to dry as the fall guy, when the reality is that he was just the mouthpiece for a news organization, and was hardly responsible for the situation. If your fact-checkers drop the ball, it doesn't mean you personally did anything wrong.

[The Painter]

Actually, my understanding of the case is that the story was basically true

Don't believe the hype. It was not true.

[Rodney]

Actually, my understanding of the case is that the story was basically true, as confirmed by sources close to the situation. The actual document used was a "forgery", or at least that's what was said about it. The speed at which it was decried as a forgery points to the slightly CT idea that it was intentionally given to CBS to discredit them, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate. Or, as I put it when the situation first started up: finding a counterfeit $100 bill doesn't mean that $100 bills aren't real.
And your evidence that the document contained information that was factually accurate is what?

Dan Rather was hung out to dry as the fall guy, when the reality is that he was just the mouthpiece for a news organization, and was hardly responsible for the situation. If your fact-checkers drop the ball, it doesn't mean you personally did anything wrong.
When every word processor expert in the world lined up to say the document was forged, Rather trotted out a former typewriter repairman to say it was not forged. Who do you think was right?

[jsfisher]

The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate.


This statement troubles me. Let's ignore, for a moment, any controversy over the "factually accurate" part; that still leaves the whole end justifies the means sentiment.

[JoeEllison]

This statement troubles me. Let's ignore, for a moment, any controversy over the "factually accurate" part; that still leaves the whole end justifies the means sentiment.

No it doesn't.

[JoeEllison]

Don't believe the hype. It was not true.

Except, yeah, it looks like it was. Sorry you and reality don't see eye to eye.

[jsfisher]

No it doesn't.


Forged document <-- the means.
Accurate report <-- the end.

So, yes, it does.

[JoeEllison]

Forged document <-- the means.
Accurate report <-- the end.

So, yes, it does.
I'm not saying that.

[jsfisher]

I'm not saying that.


Fair enough. I will point out, though, that at least one reader, the following post excerpt seemed to minimize the importance of whether the source document was a fake and emphasized the importance of the correctness of the conclusion drawn from it.

Actually, my understanding of the case is that the story was basically true, as confirmed by sources close to the situation. The actual document used was a "forgery", or at least that's what was said about it. The speed at which it was decried as a forgery points to the slightly CT idea that it was intentionally given to CBS to discredit them, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate. Or, as I put it when the situation first started up: finding a counterfeit $100 bill doesn't mean that $100 bills aren't real.

[fuelair]

Some people just can't get over the 2000 election. Let it go Dan.

Trust me, the effects of that fiasco will be felt for quite a while.

[fuelair]

Don't believe the hype. It was not true.
Wrong.

[Checkmite]

When every word processor expert in the world lined up to say the document was forged, Rather trotted out a former typewriter repairman to say it was not forged. Who do you think was right?

You mean CBS had Rather trot out a typewriter repairman. This is the point of the lawsuit: Rather was not the author of these events, but was made responsible for them anyway.

[The Painter]

Except, yeah, it looks like it was. Sorry you and reality don't see eye to eye.


Reality and you are not friends. If it's true they wouldn't have fired Dan, or the 3 to 6 other people fired. Fake + Forged = Untrue. That's reality.

[Darth Rotor]

Reality and you are not friends. If it's true they wouldn't have fired Dan, or the 3 to 6 other people fired. Fake + Forged = Untrue. That's reality.
Dan Rather is not entitled to a Job. CBS can hire or fire him at will, with the constraint being that any contractual deals on pay or severence package must legally be paid to him per the employment contract.

He is not the first, nor the only, person to lose a position as a scapegoat for an event that embarasses an organization.

For many years he reaped the benefit of being the face of CBS. It earned him more than money, it earned him fame and things like appearances on the Tonight Show.

Well, when you are the face, you also get to take the facial. The public apology, as I see it, was part of him being the face of CBS news. You get the goodies, and the baddies, when you are the big dog.

If Rather is suing over "a wrongful termination for cause," I have every confidence a court will find for him, or CBS, correctly based on the merits of the case.

The charge that the administration censored CBS is a curious one. Needs more meat.

DR

[Rodney]

You mean CBS had Rather trot out a typewriter repairman. This is the point of the lawsuit: Rather was not the author of these events, but was made responsible for them anyway.
Hardly. As a USA Today story -- http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-09-19-rather_N.htm?csp=34 -- notes:

"Josh Howard, the former 60 Minutes II producer who lost his job as a result of the story, ridiculed Rather's lawsuit and his claim that he was merely a 'narrator' of the piece.

"'I think he's gone off the deep end, or should I say, deeper end,' said Howard, now a producer at CNBC. 'He was just the narrator? Please. He conducted every interview, including the so-called document expert. He worked the phones and talked to sources. He argued with us over every line of the script. Where does he think this story came from? I didn't assign it to him. He brought it to me. And he still insists that 'no public apology was needed.' So he's saying he's vigorously defending a story he knew nothing about? He wants it both ways. Courage indeed.'"

[Random]

Reality and you are not friends. If it's true they wouldn't have fired Dan, or the 3 to 6 other people fired. Fake + Forged = Untrue. That's reality.

Um, Bush didn’t show up to complete his National Guard duty. I don’t know of anyone who seriously argues that he did. The media went into overdrive to hype the forgery angle, and bent over backwards to avoid the fact that Bush didn’t show up. It would have been funny if it was not so sad.

[Mycroft]

Um, Bush didn’t show up to complete his National Guard duty. I don’t know of anyone who seriously argues that he did. The media went into overdrive to hype the forgery angle, and bent over backwards to avoid the fact that Bush didn’t show up. It would have been funny if it was not so sad.

It's a man bites dog thing. We already knew GWB skated his way through his military obligation on family influence, the precise details were almost irrelevant. The American electorate were well aware of his failings and voted him into office anyway. Honestly, the Democrats deserve a large share of the blame for failing to put up a better alternative.

Dan Rather, the venerable icon of CBS news being involved with forged documents apparently with the intent of throwing a presidential election? That's new and a big deal! Of course that's huge!

And let's be honest, Bush may have skated through the national guard on family influence, but because Dan Rather effed this story up so bad, it's not exactly clear if he met his legal obligations or not.

And now we have the kook factor. Dan Rather immersed in denial, now believing his problems are not the result of his own screw-up, but some machinations against him. Now we watch for the same reasons we pay attention to OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson. It's fascinating to observe how far down these icons can plunge themselves.

[The Painter]

Dan Rather is not entitled to a Job. CBS can hire or fire him at will, with the constraint being that any contractual deals on pay or severence package must legally be paid to him per the employment contract.

He is not the first, nor the only, person to lose a position as a scapegoat for an event that embarasses an organization.

For many years he reaped the benefit of being the face of CBS. It earned him more than money, it earned him fame and things like appearances on the Tonight Show.

Well, when you are the face, you also get to take the facial. The public apology, as I see it, was part of him being the face of CBS news. You get the goodies, and the baddies, when you are the big dog.

If Rather is suing over "a wrongful termination for cause," I have every confidence a court will find for him, or CBS, correctly based on the merits of the case.

The charge that the administration censored CBS is a curious one. Needs more meat.

DR


You contradict yourself in the same post. You're insane.

[Mycroft]

You contradict yourself in the same post. You're insane.

I don't see the contradiction that you do. Could you point it out for us and explain why you think it's a contradiction?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

So when it was proven that his "fake but true" proof was printed with MS Word, which had a font that didn't exist in the 70s, nor was there a typewriter at the time that would print that font WITH variable width...

I guess since the goal was a pious one, the means to the ends were legitimate?

I'd hate to be tried by your jury.

"Well, your honor. We have people saying that SMZ was a dirty SOB, and well, here's a re-typed up proof of something he typed up on his Mommy's typewriter in 1975 at the age of 3. Nevermind that it's printed with an HP LaserJet, with Comic Sans font, and then run through a photocopier 100 times to make it look older... It's the real deal! Now put him away for LIFE!"

[JoeEllison]

Reality and you are not friends. If it's true they wouldn't have fired Dan, or the 3 to 6 other people fired. Fake + Forged = Untrue. That's reality.

So, you're saying that if someone forges the Declaration of Independence, that means the real document never really existed?

[Billdave2]

So, you're saying that if someone forges the Declaration of Independence, that means the real document never really existed?

I believe there is a verified original to compare it to, so your example is not valid.

[JoeEllison]

I believe there is a verified original to compare it to, so your example is not valid.My example is valid, since they had the testimony of the secretary who worked in the office that the documents supposedly came from, verifying the contents.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

So, you're saying that if someone forges the Declaration of Independence, that means the real document never really existed?

There's a big difference between a historical document that had more than one copy made of it and intentionally distributed since 1776, as well as had it's very creation documented from start to finish, and caused a war... And a made up memo from some old lady who had an agenda given to a man who had an agenda and a soapbox in front of millions of people.

[JoeEllison]

You guys do know that Bush doesn't deny the basic facts of this, right?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

My example is valid, since they had the testimony of the secretary who worked in the office that the documents supposedly came from, verifying the contents.

"I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."
A ringing endorsement of validity!

[Billdave2]

You guys do know that Bush doesn't deny the basic facts of this, right?

What good would it do for him to deny this? You have made up your mind that it happened and no amount of evidence will convince you. There is no evidence that these documents have any basis in fact except the word of the man who forged them (who is an admitted Bush hater) and the statement of a women who says it "sounds like" it could be true.

The fact is these documents were forgeries. End of story. To justify them by trying to say that they are "fake but true" is disingenious at best.

[JoeEllison]

Do you deny that you have stopped beating your wife?

What good would it do for him to deny this? You have made up your mind that it happened and no amount of evidence will convince you. There is no evidence that these documents have any basis in fact except the word of the man who forged them (who is an admitted Bush hater) and the statement of a women who says it "sounds like" it could be true.

The fact is these documents were forgeries. End of story. To justify them by trying to say that they are "fake but true" is disingenious at best.

So, you don't know that Bush WAS suspended from flying for missing a physical, and that he has admitted this to be true and has even offered an excuse for it?

[Mycroft]

So, you're saying that if someone forges the Declaration of Independence, that means the real document never really existed?


Nobody said that. What is being said is that if you're going to present evidence for anything, you need to make sure your evidence isn't faked.

That's true no matter what your underlying political position.

[Billdave2]

So, you don't know that Bush WAS suspended from flying for missing a physical, and that he has admitted this to be true and has even offered an excuse for it?

Have you read the document? There is more there than whether or not Bush took the physical (no one says that he did). The memo concern political pressure being placed on Killian to cover up for Bush. This is what is disputed.

[JoeEllison]

What is being said is that if you're going to present evidence for anything, you need to make sure your evidence isn't faked.

That's true no matter what your underlying political position.

No, what people seem to be saying is that because one piece of evidence was faked, there is absolutely no evidence. That position is simply not true. Of course, that was the way it was spun to satisfy the morons who voted for BushBush supporters... :rolleyes:

[Billdave2]

No, what people seem to be saying is that because one piece of evidence was faked, there is absolutely no evidence. That position is simply not true. Of course, that was the way it was spun to satisfy the morons who voted for BushBush supporters... :rolleyes:

Please provide this other evidence. I have not seen any.

[quixotecoyote]

Ask Bush:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/11/white_house_releases_bushs_guard_records/

[Random]

What good would it do for him to deny this? You have made up your mind that it happened and no amount of evidence will convince you. There is no evidence that these documents have any basis in fact except the word of the man who forged them (who is an admitted Bush hater) and the statement of a women who says it "sounds like" it could be true.
How tough would it be for Bush to show he had been there? One person who remembered him being there? Where did he live while he was serving there? Did he have any friends? One official document saying that he showed up? How hard could it be?

Silence can speak volumes.

[Billdave2]

Ask Bush:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/11/white_house_releases_bushs_guard_records/

Interesting, but does not show political pressure being placed on Killian to cover for Bush, which is the disputed information from the forged documents. The fact remains that if there was evidence to support these claims, there would have been no need to forge the documents in the firts place.

[Mycroft]

No, what people seem to be saying is that because one piece of evidence was faked, there is absolutely no evidence. That position is simply not true. Of course, that was the way it was spun to satisfy the morons who voted for BushBush supporters... :rolleyes:

Well, yeah. In general when people present fake evidence for something it tends to cast doubt on that something. Are you surprised?

Personally, I didn't vote for Bush, I don't like him, I'm looking forward to his leaving office, and I think he's probably the worst president to have been in office during my lifetime.

Having said that, I don't see any strong evidence that he didn't fulfill his legal requirement in the national guard. Could he/should he have done more? Well, his own press secretary said that according to the article quixotecoyote posted, but that itself doesn't make a scandal.

[Billdave2]

How tough would it be for Bush to show he had been there? One person who remembered him being there? Where did he live while he was serving there? Did he have any friends? One official document saying that he showed up? How hard could it be?

Silence can speak volumes.

Can you show me a document proving where you were on march 3 1972 (better yet make it an official document)? How about a friend that can vouch for you? It was a long time ago! If there was real evidence of this it would have been used instead of having to forge documents.

[Random]

Can you show me a document proving where you were on march 3 1972 (better yet make it an official document)? How about a friend that can vouch for you? It was a long time ago! If there was real evidence of this it would have been used instead of having to forge documents.

I was born May 2nd, 1976, so the March date is not an issue. One of the first things I learned as a child was to memorize my home address in case I ever got lost. I can recite by heart every address I have ever lived at except one I only stayed at for a few months several years ago. Even that is not much of a problem, as I can figure it out with a minute of looking on Google. One moment...

...Found it. Of course, I could have gotten up and looked through my tax records, but why stand up when I can search the web?

This is not an issue of where he was on any one particular day. We are talking about several months of TANG service. He can't even give us his old mailing address during that time with seven years and the combined resources of the executive branch at his disposal?

Spare me.

[brodski]

This statement troubles me. Let's ignore, for a moment, any controversy over the "factually accurate" part; that still leaves the whole end justifies the means sentiment.

If the ends don't justify the means, what do?

[jsfisher]

If the ends don't justify the means, what do?

I'd hope the means justify the means, independent of the result.

[shuize]

Thanks for the walk down memory lane. I'd almost forgotten about the "fake but accurate" silliness.

[Ziggurat]

The fact is that the document, forged or not, contained information that was factually accurate.

Do you know the importance of the memos, if they were real? It doesn't appear that you do. The memos said that Bush was ordered to attend a physical which he missed. If true, that would mean that Bush violated an order, and that's a very bad thing to do. If not true, then there are no consequences to missing the physical beyond having his flight status suspended. But those fraudulent memos are really the only source for that information. The entire significance rests on whether or not he was ordered to attend the physical, and since we know those documents were fraudulent, there's no reason to think he was. While the documents may contain some information which was factually accurate (such as the correct spelling for Bush's name), the significant information they contain has no support whatsoever, and cannot be said to be accurate at all.

[JoeEllison]

Do you know the importance of the memos, if they were real? It doesn't appear that you do. The memos said that Bush was ordered to attend a physical which he missed. If true, that would mean that Bush violated an order, and that's a very bad thing to do. If not true, then there are no consequences to missing the physical beyond having his flight status suspended. But those fraudulent memos are really the only source for that information. The entire significance rests on whether or not he was ordered to attend the physical, and since we know those documents were fraudulent, there's no reason to think he was. While the documents may contain some information which was factually accurate (such as the correct spelling for Bush's name), the significant information they contain has no support whatsoever, and cannot be said to be accurate at all.
Do YOU understand the significance of what you are saying? Bush missed his physical, no one denies that, not even Bush. Do you deny something that even Bush admits to?

[Ziggurat]

Do YOU understand the significance of what you are saying? Bush missed his physical, no one denies that, not even Bush. Do you deny something that even Bush admits to?

I know Bush missed the physical, but that's not what's significant about the documents. What are the consequences for missing that physical? Only that he can't fly until he takes it, and he didn't fly after missing it, so there's no story there, and nothing that wasn't already covered before CBS put the fake documents on the air. What are the consequences of violating a direct order? They can be quite significant. Was Bush ordered to take the physical? We have no evidence that he was beyond the fraudulent documents.

[JoeEllison]

I know Bush missed the physical, but that's not what's significant about the documents. What are the consequences for missing that physical? Only that he can't fly until he takes it, and he didn't fly after missing it, so there's no story there, and nothing that wasn't already covered before CBS put the fake documents on the air. What are the consequences of violating a direct order? They can be quite significant. Was Bush ordered to take the physical? We have no evidence that he was beyond the fraudulent documents.

Of course he was ordered... unless you think that the Air National Guard asks people pretty please? It seems that the aversion to military service extends from Bush to his supporters, because it is pretty damned obvious to anyone with military service that people get orders to do things, not polite invitations. He'd have received a written order to report on or about a certain date. Since he didn't show up, and never took the physical, it is clear that he was AWOL. In this case, since he admits that he didn't show up, the logical assumption is that he was AWOL unless given specific permission by his commanding officer to reschedule his flight physical. Where's the paperwork for that?

[JoeEllison]

I'm speaking from experience, BTW... I received orders to attend a physical and a day of classes when I was on Ready Reserve, I couldn't make it, so I was sent a new set of orders with a new date to attend. No one asked me if I wanted to go, I didn't have to option of not showing up.

I swear to Satan, some of you people seem to think that the ANG is the goddamned Cub Scouts.

[Ziggurat]

Of course he was ordered...

That is an assumption on your part without any evidence. TANG had regulations that required periodic physicals in order to maintain flight status, but those regulations do not constitute orders, and as already stated, the only consequence of not taking the periodic physical, according to the regulations, was that you couldn't fly.

[JoeEllison]

That is an assumption on your part without any evidence. TANG had regulations that required periodic physicals in order to maintain flight status, but those regulations do not constitute orders, and as already stated, the only consequence of not taking the periodic physical, according to the regulations, was that you couldn't fly.

You have no idea what you're talking about, so continuing to bang my head on your ignorance is useless. Those "regulations" are ORDERS.

[Ziggurat]

You have no idea what you're talking about, so continuing to bang my head on your ignorance is useless. Those "regulations" are ORDERS.

But Bush didn't violate the regulations. The regulations say that he couldn't fly unless he took the physical. And he didn't fly. So there was no violation of the regulations. That's why an explicit order to attend the physical would be important, if it were true. Nothing else about those memos has anything to do with Bush's behavior that wasn't already known. That is the only reason they were put on the air, and why the fact that the memos were fraudulent blows that whole particular story out of the water.

But keep hanging onto "fake but accurate" if you want to.

[JoeEllison]

But Bush didn't violate the regulations. The regulations say that he couldn't fly unless he took the physical. And he didn't fly. So there was no violation of the regulations. That's why an explicit order to attend the physical would be important, if it were true. Nothing else about those memos has anything to do with Bush's behavior that wasn't already known. That is the only reason they were put on the air, and why the fact that the memos were fraudulent blows that whole particular story out of the water.

But keep hanging onto "fake but accurate" if you want to.
Do you believe that people in the military get invitations to show up for things? Do you think someone asked Bush if he could please come take his physical, but only if he felt like it?

No. If he had to take a physical, the need for the physical would have been conveyed to him as an order, because that it the way the military works. The regulation that required him to take the physical is also an order, unless the ANG is organized very differently than the Army and Marine Corps. Regulations are orders. His scheduled physical was an order to report for duty, not a request or a suggestion or some sort of vague hint.

Do you have any evidence that his need for a physical was something other than an order based on regulations? If not, the default position is that he violated orders and regulations(really the same thing) by not attending his physical.

[Ziggurat]

Do you believe that people in the military get invitations to show up for things?

That's precisely what happened when Bush was in Alabama. He had permission from his TANG commander to go to Alabama. He was given the opportunity to attend drills there to get credits, but was not reassigned to any Alabama unit, and was therefore not obligated to show up.

If he had to take a physical, the need for the physical would have been conveyed to him as an order, because that it the way the military works.

Once again: he didn't have to. The ONLY consequence for not taking the physical was that he couldn't fly. He could still perform other duties.

The regulation that required him to take the physical is also an order

But the regulations didn't require that he take the physical. It only required that he not fly if he hadn't taken it, which he didn't.

[JoeEllison]

You DO think that the ANG is the Cub Scouts. Thanks for wasting my time.

[Checkmite]

Hardly. As a USA Today story -- http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-09-19-rather_N.htm?csp=34 -- notes:

Someone's word against someone else's. Not quite as definitive as you might think, yet.

[jsfisher]

You have no idea what you're talking about, so continuing to bang my head on your ignorance is useless. Those "regulations" are ORDERS.


Do you have a link to the text of the regulation in question? That might clear up a few things.

[Rodney]

Someone's word against someone else's. Not quite as definitive as you might think, yet.
Here is another opinion from someone who is a member of the editorial page staff of the Washington Post -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101509.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Darth Rotor]

You contradict yourself in the same post.
Prove it.
You're insane
Unrelated to my post.

However, if you have a claim of that nature, you are asked to prove it, or retract the falsehood.

DR

[FarmallMTA]

Or, as I put it when the situation first started up: finding a counterfeit $100 bill doesn't mean that $100 bills aren't real.

This is a false analogy. Rather did not display the reportorial equivalent of a $100 bill and claim it to be authentic. In this case, he displayed the reportorial equivalent of a FAX of a $101 bill and claimed that IT was authentic. His entire report was based on the information contained within the fax of the $101 bill. The $101 bill fax was his "the smoking gun" validating his story.

This analogy more accurately describes Rather's problem because:

1) none of us on this forum (and almost nobody in the entire world) has ever seen, heard, or personally encountered a military document prepared by Bush's superior officer in the TX Nat Guard during the time in question. Therefore, we were briefly shown a document of a type almost nobody in the casual viewing audience had competence to judge accurate on the basis of familiarity. This alone raises the bar for Rather to either conclusively PROVE the legitimacy of the document or not use it at all.

2) After questions were raised by a viewer who DID have competency to judge the document, Rather was unable to demonstrate how a facsimile of a document prepared in Times Roman #12 could have come from the office of the superior officer at the time in question since EVERY SINGLE OTHER DOCUMENT in existence from the officer and time in question was in completely different font, format, language, and tone. The document presented by Rather is clearly a hoax, and admitted by him to be one.

3) The document was then "verified" by hearsay and innuendo from commentators obviously biased and hostile to Bush, i.e. from those who would have the means, the motive, and, thanks to Rather, the opportunity to make misstatements. Rather did NOT allow us to see the man who made the allegations in the first place so that we could judge his veracity.

The upshot of the episode is that it was a political trick by some individuals opposed to Bush. Rather participated in a critical and essential way and was key to the operation's ultimate success or failure. It failed because his document was a forgery, his commentators lied, and his own willfulness blinded him to the obvious shakiness of the entire premise of the "story."

[Rob Lister]

Bumping just to say I think this is very, very funny.

[HereticHulk]

And yet another opinion!

The opaque story was partly illuminated by a piece in Salon, written by Mary Jacoby, on Sept. 2, 2004. Offering extensive documentation, including photographs and letters, Linda Allison, who had housed Bush during his missing year, explained that his drunken misbehavior was creating havoc for his father's political aspirations and that the elder Bush asked his old friend Jimmy Allison, a political consultant from Midland, Texas, now living in Alabama, to handle the wastrel son. "The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing," Linda Allison told Salon. During the time the younger Bush was under the watchful eye of the Allisons, he never went to a National Guard base or wore a uniform. "Good lord, no. I had no idea that the National Guard was involved in his life in any way," said Allison. She did, however, remember him drinking, urinating on a car, screaming at police and trashing the apartment he had rented.:D

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/27/dan_rather_suit/index1.html

[Walrus32]

Surprising as it may seem, there are those who do not regard Salon as a source of unbiased commentary, but rather as a hotbed of strident mendacity.

[Darth Rotor]

You DO think that the ANG is the Cub Scouts. Thanks for wasting my time.
For Zig and Joe.

866. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 15 is also commonly used as summary discipline for routine UCMJ's violations like missing a movement locally, or being late to work consistently.

1. Missing a scheduled flight physical can result, tecnhically, in a charge of AWOL (article 86, UA/unauthorized Absence in Navy Speak, or not being at the appointed place of duty) if the scheduling is done in certain forms, or presence at place of duty is on a written order from the person's commander. If you live in Dallas, and your drill in Austin at Bergstrom AFB (back in the day) and you are ordered for your drill to get a flight physical from the Bergstrom clinic, and you don't show up, I'd say an article 86 is a likely write up by your command.

2. Failing to keep one's flight physical current will cost flight status, which is voluntary in any case. How the command deals with that is another matter. (Navy and Air Force have some subtle differences in regs, but the basics are the same.) If the pilot indicates he wishes to remain on flight status, he has to take the physical, and pass it. If the unit commander loses a pilot, who simply won't be bothered to take his annual physical, then the officer's fitness report/OER will likely be annotated regarding a signal lack of motivation. Also, in some cases, a FNAEB (or Air Force equivalent) review board will convene to determine whether or not the pilot is to remain in flying status, or be removed from it.

If W did in fact blow off his flight physical, then he indicated by his actions a preference to disvolunteer from flight status. His manliness check with fellow pilots, particularly back in the day, would put him in the category of "non hacker." His commander would be well within his rights to ground him pending a hearing. If he was subsequently ordered to a scheduled reserve drill, one of which was a flight physical, and he did not show up, more than one article of UCMJ applies should the commander exercise his authority. Now, if said command was influenced by other considerations, like politics, then maybe nothing shows up in the official record.

Unit commander might also decide that said pilot is a non hacker, and ask AFPC to reassign him to a non flying billet so that another pilot, who would bother to stay current, could fill the reserve flying billet.

Zig: I will state this as a pilot for 25 years, USN. If your CO had to tell you to go get your physical, and had to order you to go and get it, you have no business being a pilot in uniform. If you can't be bothered to schedule and go to your physical, and pass it, your lack of initiative are worthy of a nasty mark on your OER/Fitness report, and your motivation suspect among your fellow pilots.

Take that for what it's worth.

DR

[Ziggurat]

Zig: I will state this as a pilot for 25 years, USN. If your CO had to tell you to go get your physical, and had to order you to go and get it, you have no business being a pilot in uniform. If you can't be bothered to schedule and go to your physical, and pass it, your lack of initiative are worthy of a nasty mark on your OER/Fitness report, and your motivation suspect among your fellow pilots.

I'm not trying to make the claim that Bush's service is impressive or even above reproach (which no doubt played a role in the fact that his service was never really used as a qualifying credential in his campaign). But all that was known prior to the infamous Dan Rather story. The opinion you express in that last sentence was supportable before it aired. The only new component was the allegation that he was given a direct order to attend the physical. There is no other evidence for that besides the fake memos. With it, we have someone who disobeyed a direct order. Without it, we just have a slacker who didn't live up to the expectations placed upon him.

All of which is a distraction from the fact that the memos were so transparently fake, and Dan Rather and Mary Mape's defense of them so intellectually dishonest, that this lawsuit doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning at trial. Dan's only real hope is that CBS gets sufficiently embarassed over their own failures in that sordid affair that they settle out of court rather than rehash it in public. I hope they don't, though, because it could be fun to watch.

[Meadmaker]

Back when this story broke, there were a couple of days when there was some doubt about the authenticity of the memo. Even after the blogosphere had shown pretty clearly that the documents were made by a word processor, there was some period of time that people were saying that they were actually made by a specific brand of typewriter with a similar font.

To my embarrasment, I was one of the people defending that theory. I had a simple reason for doing so. I felt taht the documents in question were unlikely to be forgeries, because they weren't worth forging.

If true, they proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bush was a slacker who used family influence to get out of service where he might get killed.

Say it ain't so!

The amazing thing to me was that CBS News considered it a big story. That they actually got hoodwinked by a forger on top of it made them look doubly stupid. Now they were reporting something that wasn't newsworthy, based on phony evidence.

Now Dan is saying, what exactly? That it was really not his job to pay attention to such trivialities as whether he was reporting the truth? Maybe that's how the job works, but if so, he was paid an awful lot to just mouth the words put in front of him.

[robinson]

Now Dan is saying, what exactly?


In the suit, filed in Manhattan, Rather asked for $20 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages for CBS' "intentional mishandling" of the aftermath of the story, which effectively ended his 24-year Evening News anchor career in March 2005.

Rather narrated the September 2004 report that questioned aspects of Bush's National Guard service during the Vietnam War. Using memos that were later discredited, the story alleged that a commander felt pressured to sugarcoat Bush's record. Rather has always maintained that the story might have had shortcomings but was true.

But a review by a panel appointed by CBS found that the story was neither fair nor accurate. As a result, four news staffers left.

Rather charged that CBS violated his contract by reducing his airtime on 60 Minutes after forcing him to step down as anchor of the Evening News. He also claims that the in-house investigation that CBS launched into the story was "biased" and incomplete and that it "seriously damaged his reputation."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-09-19-rather_N.htm?csp=34

I guess one could read the actual legal documents that were filed. But what would be the fun in that?

[Darth Rotor]

The amazing thing to me was that CBS News considered it a big story. That they actually got hoodwinked by a forger on top of it made them look doubly stupid. Now they were reporting something that wasn't newsworthy, based on phony evidence.
.
Stern magazine, Germany, the Hitler Diaries leap to mind. I remember Howard Stern doing an on air call up, trying to sell them Hitler video tapes. The lady on the other end was not amused.

DR

[Meadmaker]

Stern magazine, Germany, the Hitler Diaries leap to mind. I remember Howard Stern doing an on air call up, trying to sell them Hitler video tapes. The lady on the other end was not amused.

DR

I don't think the analogy is very good. The Hitler diaries, if authentic, would have provided insight into an important historical figure.

These memos were stuff we already knew. If they had been authentic, they would have added a tiny bit of knowledge, that there was a specific order that he ignored. While that can be a big deal at the time it occurs, if just doesn't matter 30 years later.

The forger of these memos figured he could get away with it because, even if he didn't have the actual documents, he was basically telling the truth. That's correct. He was. Everyone understood that, and no one cared, nor should they. We don't elect 20 year olds to the Presidency, and the George W. Bush of 1972 wasn't running for President.

This was a total non-story, regardless of whether the memos were forged, or accurate. I think that Dan still didn't get the real problem with his story. He thinks he was fired for not checking his facts. That's not really it. He was fired because people hated him, and people hated him because he had run with this ridiculous story.