Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
1) given documents he thought were true
no evidence for this whatsoever
Other than his own word. You may dislike Rather (and I am probably in that crowd) but there is no reason to think that he is stupid. To put out documents that he knew were false just to slander a president is highly unlike who Rather has shown himself to be. Once again, he is not stupid.
Lots of stupid people. The fact of the matter is that CBS bs bs bs sought out the forged documents. They went to the nutszoid who had possession of these fakes. They (CBS bs bs bs ) was told by at least two of their document esperts that they were going to have a lot of problems if they proceded with their story based on the "docs." Only one "expert" validated them, and he was not certified in any way to make such a decision. The fact that Rather took two weeks to "apologize" proves his stupidity -- now we await the investigation that will tell us whether he was involved in a greater way regarding this criminal activity.
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
within 3 hours of the release of these "documents," they were fully exposed as fake -- proving that almost no investigation was necessary. All other news agencies (NBC, Time for example) tuned done the initial offering out of hand.
They were not "fully exposed as fake" within 3 hours. Web logs (called blogs) called their authenticity into question within 3 hours. The proof was still being worked on. As we all know the investigation has to be into why the fact-checking was not done. Rather does the interviews and reads copy. Don't confuse him with being the person who did the initial investigation.
Within 3 hours, these blogs had fully documented the various aspects within the documents themselves that prove their fraud. " The proof was still being worked on" should be amended to read "...additional proof was still being worked on .." The notion that Dan was a thoughtless and innocent pawn in all this is not something I believe.
3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
the only news anchor to do so
Aye but not the only news agency/paper. I believe it was first done in the Boston Globe. It spread on the internet like wildfire. Every news agency talked about it.
Actually, Hanity had the information within an hour.
4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an investigation
two weeks later and after being under intense pressur to do so .. his initial response was one of defiance.
His initial response was that he thought they were true.
Exactly. A claim to "truth" in the face of overwhelming falsehood is defiance.
Interestingly enough the Bush administration has not denied the actual charges.
And the brilliance of the Bush campaign can be seen. His campaign was approached by CBS bs bs bs before the story broke. They made a "no comment' type response knowing (IMO) that the truth would bring this house of cards down. If the Bush campaign had given documented evidence at that time, the story would or may have never been aired -- and CBS bs bs bs would not be in the trouble they are now in.
The people
who came forward to say that the documents were forged also came forward to say that the sentiment and the information behind the documents was true.
One little old lady and who else? Think about it --- why is it the major and liberal media NOT pounding this story (the "truth" of the false documents) into the ground, right now? It is not there, Jonathan.
It matters not one whit that the documents were forged if the facts contained in them are true
which certainly seems to be the case.
This is not a story in the major media until CBS bs bs bs makes the story a big time news event with the discovery of these false documents. There was and is no story without these docs.
Contrast this with the Swift Boat crowd. Their documents and their facts were both false.
Actually, nothing in the Swift Boat book has been disproved. Kerry's campaign has admitted that the first purple heart was "probably" undeserved, that the journey into Cambodia did not happen (something Kerry has been asserting for the past 35 years, even under sworn testimony. The facts of the book called into question are questionable only because the Kerry camp has one, two or three people making the claim against the testimony of 60 Swift Boat vets and officers and 260 who stand behind the book. Numbers do not prove a thing to be true, but simple denial by a few does not prove a thing to be false. Limbo time.
5) number of Americans dead: 0
Well, one out of six isn't bad (?)
6) should be fired as CBS News Anchor
Since I stopped watching Blather after his kiss up interview with Saddam, I don't really care. Network news has lost nearly 70% of its audience since the early 1980's.
Except for Fox :)
It can be argued that Larry Flint's filth has caused "0" deaths -- but Flint's standard of worth is not the war issue. Understand that I am not arguing for the war in Iraq. It is just that the implied standard of judgment should not be whether or not someone has died.
The standard of judgment here is consequences. Rather's consequences for using forged documents are trifling.
The attempt to influence an American election is not considered "trifling" by most.
Bush's are enormous. At least one apologized.
Let's take your thought that "consequences" prove a thing to be true: the war on terror is not over. The ultimate consequence of the Bush Doctrine will or may not be known in our life time.
a brother
John
