What’s the Frequency, George?
While the legendary Walter Cronkite is tacking quietly into the sunset aboard his sailboat, Dan Rather, his controversial successor at CBS News, is determined to settle old scores.
And while my initial thought when I first heard that Rather had filed a $70 million damage suit against his old bosses was that he should have signed on as Uncle Walter’s first mate, I’ve reconsidered.
Yes, the lawsuit is a world-class case of sour grapes, but it could serve a significantly more important purpose.
It contends that CBS ruined Rather’s reputation by making him the scapegoat in one of the strangest investigative stories in memory — A September 2004 report that correctly said that President Bush’s cushy Vietnam-era military service with the Texas Air National Guard was a result of high-level string pulling, but was based, in large part, on a forged document.
While aspects of the reporting were indeed faulty, the president’s rich-boy party hearty lifestyle while Americans were dying by the thousands in Vietnam is no secret. The reaction to the story by the Republican right wing was ferocious, and is a cardinal example of how the mainstream media has been repeatedly cowed by the Rove Blowback Machine, which in this instance further greased the skids for Bush’s re-election and neitralized one of the MSM’s more outspoken figures.
That chapter in the president’s life demands to be aired out for both the historic record and to put his failings in a more comprehensive context, just as allegations that Bill Clinton as Arkansas governor had a habit of wagging his wand at the women he chased needed to be aired out.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
38 Responses to “What’s the Frequency, George?”
More than “aspects” of the reporting were wrong. It’s one thing to say Bush, like millions of Americans, avoided Vietnam service through joining the National Guard. It’s quite another to make the accusation the forged documents did – that he committed several prosecutable UCMJ violations among other things.
I’m all for “airing” a President’s background, within reason, but the 60 minutes report went far beyond that.
As for Rather’s lawsuit, if he want’s someone to blame, he only needs to look in the mirror. Had the documents been authentic, I wonder if Rather would have claimed his role was minor and heaped praise on others? Somehow I doubt it.
I think Entropy is right about Dan Rather, but, like Shaun, I want to know how President Bush spent his time in the military. And I completely agree with this:
Entropy:
Pardon the term, but the jury is still out on whether there were UCMJ violations, which is one reason why that airing is so necessary.
To argue that Rathergate represents a “cardinal example of how the mainstream media has been repeatedly cowed by the Rove Blowback Machine” is completely wrong, I would argue.
This was more a case of the Right blogosphere taking down CBS on its use of forgeries (I know some folks here at TMV disagree, and say they weren’t “proven” forgeries – but the weight of provenance says otherwise).
I remember this as a bitter blogosphere war…and chiefly recall a diary post by Kos in which he concluded: “Push back! Push back!” (i.e., the facts didn’t matter…it was only important to support Rather as he bashed Bush).
Interviews with Bush WH aides support this view. In one interview, I recall an aide saying how the WH began spinning the story…but then stopped as the story got ahead of them, and sat back in glee at the sight of CBS News “doing what they always accuse us of doing…denying…then stonewalling…then spinning”.
Shaun is giving too much credit to evil genius Rove here. This was more a case of the Right blogosphere revealing a liberal media conspiracy based on fake documents…and assisting in CBS News’ self-immolation.
And I use the term “conspiracy” consciously. As evidence: CBS 60 Minutes was hurting after this, and wanted to take out Bush desperately. Recall their planning on an election eve revelation of the “ammo dump” story. Even the NYT editors publically declared this “unanswerable” critique within 48 hours of the 04 election unethical…and broke the story themselves a week before…allowing the public to digest it.
If by “jury is still you” you mean “allegations but no evidence” then you’d be right!
It sounds to me that the “airing out” you support is more akin to a fishing expedition to find dirt on a political figure you don’t particularly like. Hopefully you will, in the future, apply the same standard to your political allies.
Be that as it may, I’d be willing to bet his superiors gave him special treatment and that he didn’t much mind receiving it. When in history have the wheels not been greased for the rich and powerful? To me that is more an indictment of the leadership at the national guard than anything else, particularly if, as you apparently allege, they covered up criminal activity by Bush.
As for the Rovian blowback machine, one hardly needs it when the evidence portrayed as damning turns out to be obviously faked. And one might suggest that the other political extreme has its own “blowback” machine as well.
You defend Rather, the indefensible, by (predictably) bashing Bush. (Why did you neglect to mention the DISASTER IN IRAQ?) As to the media, they of course are nothing like you say they are.
This may be one of those controversies that we never learn what really happened. I remember reading that Andy Card proved his loyalty to the Bush family by going to UCMJ and scrubbing Bush’s records. He was sent by the presidents father. (much the way that Gonzales came up with a plan to keep W from jury duty in Texas to keep his previous drunk driving conviction from coming to light). I tend to believe the Rather report, but if the documents were forgeries, CBS was right to hold someone accountable. Rather was the most public face on the scandal, and gave conservative talk radio hosts months of fodder. His reputation was totally wrecked by it.
DLS:
I do not defend Rather, who got his just deserts.
What I do say is that this chapter in the president’s life needs to be aired out because of the misinformation, record cleansing and other efforts to keep it from being aired out.
I agree with Krit, in that I don’t see how this can ever be resolved beyong doubt. Doubts and controversy will remain, no matter what new information came to light, and the chances for anything new being discovered are extremely slim.
The special treatment enjoyed by the rich and well connected is a damning part of every aspect of life.
Not liking it is not enough to put a stop to it. Airing it is good. Going to court with it without hard evidence might just be foolhardy.
I don’t agree with Enropy’s argument, though.
The no evidence=fishing expedition argument is false at least as often as it’s true.
The lack of evidence could point to innocence or it could be the case that wrongdoing has so far simply been successfully covered up. What matters is the truth, and the truth is not represented by ‘no
evidence’. In criminal law, this dilemma is partially mitigated by allowiing circumstantial evidence.
The lack of evidence should not stop the search for truth. But those seeking truth have to carefully weigh the consequences of overzealous pursuit.
It’s a tricky situation, and it does no good to assign malicious intent to either side. Rather, it hould be asked if the pursuit is worth it, and that. again is a difficult question to answer.
You’re using the lawsuit, which is the real subject here, and ought to be the only subject, as another excuse to bash Bush. (It’s not Rather’s photo we see, but Bush’s.)
* * *
We can be confident that Bush did something illegal and got away with it, probably the possession and use of cocaine, as well as got out of hazardous military duty because he was well-connected.
Before everyone gets too carried away here, let me wager 50 carbon credits that this “lawsuit” will never see a courtroom and it was merely Dan Rather’s sarcastic message to CBS HR………Hey, I just reforecasted my annual retirement expenses and I sure could use an extra $10M or so.
I think that BDS has clouded this entire discussion. The “case” has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Bush did or did not complete his service properly, it has everything to do with “CBS’s intentional mishandling of the aftermath of a story, broadcast by CBS on September 8, 2004, narrated by Mr. Rather and produced by Mary Mapes, on 60 Minutes II”. Simply, Mr. Rather is claiming that he just read the material put in front of him and that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the reporting, thus he suffered because of the shoddy reporting of others. Having watched Mr. Rather defend himself prior to his on-air apology, this would seem to be a fantasy on Mr. Rather’s part.
The case has nothing to do with Mr. Bush or his service in the TANG, whether honorable or not.
I think that BDS has clouded this entire discussion.
Somewhat appropriate, as BDS is the ultimate basis for the suit.
It’s not only clouding, but is the basis for this discussion as well. Look at the photo, and the title.
“BDS is the ultimate basis for the suit” sounds like indulgence in reverse BDS, or assigning unsubstantiated motivation to the position of others.
It’s called mind reading, isn’t it?
I thought we didn’t like that practice.
Or is it a case of okay for me, but not for thee?
DLS et al:
I should be out pulling wings off of flys, but I’ll state yet again for the record that this post is not about the lawsuit. It is not about Dan Rather. It is about there being an opportunity — albeit slim — because of Rather’s lawsuit to air out a chapter in the president’s life that cries out for airing out.
Hence the photograph of Lieutenant Bush and not Moonbat Rather.
Dunno, I think it deserves some looking at from an academic standpoint. Fairly obviously? the docs were forgeries as per the secerataries’ statements. But, she also said the accusations were pretty accurate. I.e. W did it, but just was not stupid enough to leave a paper trail…
In the end though, we are looking on the wanning end of King George’s reign (thankfully) so maybe we should let it go, and move on to more pressing issues like Iraq, debt, health care, immigration, domestic survaliane, and so on.
After all, even if it were proven true, is anyone going to impeach? Thought not…
this post is not about the lawsuit. It is not about Dan Rather. It is about there being an opportunity — albeit slim — because of Rather’s lawsuit to air out a chapter in the president’s life that cries out for airing out.
Told ya. All about the BDS. Thanks for the confirmation, Shaun!
Poor old MSM, getting sidetracked away from what really matters by such little things as manufactured evidence and fraudulent documents! Don’t they know what’s really important? Namely, reinforcing nutroots self-affirmations about smear jobs on a fading lame-duck politician’s possible youthful misbehavior decades ago?
“Don’t they know what’s really important? Namely, reinforcing nutroots self-affirmations about smear jobs on a fading lame-duck politician’s possible youthful misbehavior decades ago?”
Oh, i forgot. What’s really important is to make baseless assertions about smear jobs
Got it.
As far as BDS goes, history will judge who was more deranged, Bush supporters or Bush opponants.
Yet another opportunity doesn’t cry out to … ordinary people. I realize such things cry out to you and a few others many times a day, even in an hour.
They hear voices, DLS. Gotta do what the Rice Krispies tell you.
Tully-
“They hear voices, DLS. Gotta do what the Rice Krispies tell you.”
So, this is an example of the proof-based and civil debate advocated by the critics of TMV commenters.
I get it. I get it. I get it.
One might speculate that is both possible to not be a Bush supporter AND criticize instances of BDS. One can, at the same moment, not be a Bush supporter, yet “defend” him based on fairness alone.
As is so often the case, the debate is deconstructed and everyone is neatly categorized into pro-bush and anti-bush factions – as if viewpoints were really that shallow.
Frothing silliness doesn’t call for proofs, doma. Joking sarcasm is adequate.
You shoulda heard me in the Clinton years, when the nutburger right was in full bloom. They’re fun to mock too.
One might also speculate on the possibility of questioning Mr. Bush and not have it thought unfair by a dozen people.
Tully,
Mocking Clinton OR Bush what does that accomplish? It gets everyone off topic, angry and hurling accusations around like ping ping balls. So does hiding behind accusations of BDS for EVERY argument not favored. So does hiding behind other acronyms. like PC. The overuse of labeling is endangering the very meaning of any or all words in the English language.
Inducing a riot is not an accomplishment to be proud of, IMO.
Getting back to Bush’s past., his enormous influence (some would say: catastrophic influence) makes him a legitimate subject of interest, of wanting to know what kind of person is at the helm. How to weight the information gleaned in the overall picure is another matter, one that we should discuss with cool heads, not a call to arms insulting opponents or the labeling that by now gives me a rash wheneve I encounter it.
So, if you want to present your point of view, I’d be curious to know what you find so extaordinarty about people’s curiosity about the man at the head of the table.
If your answer consists or more grandstanding, my curiosity will cease on the spot, BTW. If I wanted that kind of thrill, I’d take up watching wrestling.
Rather stepped on his d**k and got what was coming to him. For a journalist at his level to get taken by a forgery like that means it was rushed and poorly researched. Bush provides so much ammunition to use on himself in terms of credibility his detractors really should just stick to the valid stuff.
Fact is, no one really cared about Bush’s record, just his image.
Bush was questioned during the 2000 campaign and did not answer. Obviously something was being hidden.
That’s how most of us are. The irrationality (along with immaturity) remains almost exclusively with the Bush-haters. Bush is a dead, not merely lame, duck these days and they still exhibit pathological (diseased) hatred of him (similar to what the Left felt toward Reagan) and outrage over everything he says or does.
Is that Bush or Obama you are thinking of?
Mocking Clinton OR Bush what does that accomplish?
Got me, domajot, as I have done neither here, so I don’t know where you get that. Better read it through again.
Fact is that most folks couldn’t care less, just as most folks couldn’t care less about Clinton’s draft-dodging and non-inhalation technique. They’re not going to be voting for either of them again, so who give a flying Ferdinand? But apparently those obsessed with such trivia feel a great need to rationalize their obsessions.
tULLY,
I WAS REFERRING TO THIS:
“You shoulda heard me in the Clinton years”
When someone responds to irrational people by imitiating them, there is no clarification. There is just more noise. Bashing bashers in kind, is an example.
I understand the temptation. Too often I end up arguing against the arguer instead of sticking to the topic. But it’s a self perpetuaing cycle. ,
Because Bush bashers overdo it, overdoing the bashing of Bush bashing just creates chaos.
There is a lot to be said for leading by example.
I think you are wrong about ‘most folks’. Most folks will listen to reasonable arguemtns and respond in kind – but not if they’re being attacked or labeled for having a certain view. I once commented about certain kinds of oratory by using Bush as an example, and out came the BDS darts. By now, one can’t even voice an opinion about his choice of ties without earning that epithet. It starts the minute you tepe in the letter B.
Most folks listen to the person they like most. It’s how you win a jury trial. It’s how you win an “argument.”
Logic and reason are mere arsenic-laced cupcakes for the nerds of the world.
Egrubs-
You’re a poet/philosopher!
Who knew?
Actually, every post I’ve ever seen here from Tully bashes anyone who criticizes Bush or his policies, no matter how mildly. So somehow his protestations against being a Bush loyalist or someone who ever criticized right wing nut jobs somehow rings hollow.
“Is that Bush or Obama you are thinking of?”
Bush. The man’s record runs from mediocity to utter failure. Look at every company he’s ever run, it gives you a glimpse of what kind of executive he is. Obama’s record speaks well of him even before he took elected office in ’96.