Dan Rather is suing CBS and Viacom

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think he may have a leg to stand on. I feel he was representing the views of his employers. When you work for an organization that is more liberal than conservative and they are agenda driven toward the Left side of politics, then they are paying you to be a liberal lefty. He was fired because of his employer's left-wing agenda.

That's snarky, but wrong. CBS in fact nailed Rather with a Republican-led 'investigation' and report condemning his reporting.

Remember, the CEO of CBS' parent company endorsed Bush - hardly the view Rather is accused of - despite his personal views being democrat.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think he may have a leg to stand on. I feel he was representing the views of his employers. When you work for an organization that is more liberal than conservative and they are agenda driven toward the Left side of politics, then they are paying you to be a liberal lefty. He was fired because of his employer's left-wing agenda.

That doesn't stand up to scrutiny though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...L2007092000439_pf.html

Several former colleagues said they were baffled by the move. "I think he's gone off the deep end," said Josh Howard, who was forced to resign as executive producer of "60 Minutes II" after CBS retracted the story. "He seems to be saying he was just the narrator.

"He did every interview. He worked the sources over the phone. He was there in the room with the so-called document experts. He argued over every line in the script. It's laughable."

Doesn't seem that Rather was forced into taking any position but his own.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Doesn't seem that Rather was forced into taking any position but his own.

He wasn't. Anyone who believes a veteran with 40+ years in the business would just take such a story and run on the air with it -- without any fact-checking or second looks - is a fool. Rather was fully aware the garbage he was presenting was very likely wrong, yet he chose to continue running with it.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Doesn't seem that Rather was forced into taking any position but his own.

He wasn't. Anyone who believes a veteran with 40+ years in the business would just take such a story and run on the air with it -- without any fact-checking or second looks - is a fool. Rather was fully aware the garbage he was presenting was very likely wrong, yet he chose to continue running with it.

There is that blind hate again. That is untrue. The document was forged. The story checked out.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Doesn't seem that Rather was forced into taking any position but his own.

He wasn't. Anyone who believes a veteran with 40+ years in the business would just take such a story and run on the air with it -- without any fact-checking or second looks - is a fool. Rather was fully aware the garbage he was presenting was very likely wrong, yet he chose to continue running with it.

There is that blind hate again. That is untrue. The document was forged. The story checked out.

Bolded for truth.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Fake but accurate FTW!

 

[1EZduzit]

.

 

[1EZduzit]

.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Fake but accurate FTW!

Even the secretary who typed the actual documents vouched for their accuracy. Hard to believe your hero was a deserter? Believe it.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is that blind hate again. That is untrue. The document was forged. The story checked out.

Anyone can look at those documents and see they were phony. Rather was told that there was a high probability the stuff was forged and urged not to run the story - he chose to choose partisan political ambition instead of journalistic professionalism and integrity.

Your BS claims of "the story checked out" are dismissed.

 

[heartsurgeon]

now lemme get this straight..

he says he "just reads the news"...so he didn't really vette the story himself...

he claims it's CBS fault the facts were wrong...

he still claims, even thought the facts were wrong, the story was right......

exactly how many pills he has to take at night to get to sleep (to block out the whirling sound his head makes as it spins reality 24/7) is unknown.

he's mentally ill, and over the hill..

heck, he better sue CBS quickm cause they're goin down the tubes..

do any of you kids even watch the "evening news" on TV....crap, nobody under the age of 60 watches that anymore,,,everything is off the internet..

a couple of senile dinosaurs suing each other...only the lawyers are gonna win in this battle.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is that blind hate again. That is untrue. The document was forged. The story checked out.

Anyone can look at those documents and see they were phony. Rather was told that there was a high probability the stuff was forged and urged not to run the story - he chose to choose partisan political ambition instead of journalistic professionalism and integrity.

Your BS claims of "the story checked out" are dismissed.

No doubt. You guys are good at dismissing the truth.


-------------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is that blind hate again. That is untrue. The document was forged. The story checked out.

Anyone can look at those documents and see they were phony. Rather was told that there was a high probability the stuff was forged and urged not to run the story - he chose to choose partisan political ambition instead of journalistic professionalism and integrity.

Your BS claims of "the story checked out" are dismissed.

LOL, the story did check out. Bush never bothered to get a physical after being trained to fly a jet and all he has are a bunch of worthless excuses as to why he didn't fullfill his duty and get his physical. He was required to get it, whether flying or not.

 

[Lemon law]

Spin the story in any way a given poster cares to. Its still about Rather's ego and the authenticity of the documents that GWB evaded Guard service. Had any truth come out in the 2004 election on the latter point and it may have changed the outcome. Now its flat out too late to be anything but a historical footnote if the truth ever comes out.

But its still my understanding that the origin of the Burkett document is still not clear. At best its a retyped copy of an earlier original. At worse its a total forgery. The Rather lawsuit may give us that second bite at the apple to find out the real truth.

But when I first read the report, I had incorrectly assumed that this Rather lawsuit was filed far earlier and had now finally progressed to some point. But it now looks like the Rather lawsuit is freshly filed. In which case any near term big progress will be in its dismissal. And if it ever progresses to trial, we are talking many years in the future.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, the story did check out. Bush never bothered to get a physical after being trained to fly a jet and all he has are a bunch of worthless excuses as to why he didn't fullfill his duty and get his physical. He was required to get it, whether flying or not.

His physical has nothing to do with Rather's blunder, or the topic at hand. Do you ever not obfuscate completely in a response?

How does a story "check out" when the evidence is proven false? :roll:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, the story did check out. Bush never bothered to get a physical after being trained to fly a jet and all he has are a bunch of worthless excuses as to why he didn't fullfill his duty and get his physical. He was required to get it, whether flying or not.

His physical has nothing to do with Rather's blunder, or the topic at hand. Do you ever not obfuscate completely in a response?

How does a story "check out" when the evidence is proven false? :roll:

I guess you didn't bother reading the links I posted. Bush deserted, he got away with it but it doesn't change the facts that he never did take that physical because HE decided he didn't want to fly anymore. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in "real life".

Then he went to a base that didn't have any training, how convienient. A real commited fighter pilot out doing his patrioitc duty.... campaigning for someone instead of fulfiulling his commitment.

Of course now he's complaining about people mixing politics with the military when they critisize Petraeus. Wake up and smell the coffee, the Bush's are hypocrits and liars.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I guess you didn't bother reading the links I posted. Bush deserted, he got away with it but it doesn't change the facts that he never did take that physical because HE decided he didn't want to fly anymore. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in "real life".

Then he went to a base that didn't have any training, how convienient. A real commited fighter pilot out doing his patrioitc duty.... campaigning for someone instead of fulfiulling his commitment.

Of course now he's complaining about people mixing politics with the military when they critisize Petraeus. Wake up and smell the coffee, the Bush's are hypocrits and liars.

You just don't get it. This is about phony documents and a story with no legs. It has nothing to do with physicals or training.

I reiterate: Rather is a total disgrace.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I guess you didn't bother reading the links I posted. Bush deserted, he got away with it but it doesn't change the facts that he never did take that physical because HE decided he didn't want to fly anymore. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in "real life".

Then he went to a base that didn't have any training, how convienient. A real commited fighter pilot out doing his patrioitc duty.... campaigning for someone instead of fulfiulling his commitment.

Of course now he's complaining about people mixing politics with the military when they critisize Petraeus. Wake up and smell the coffee, the Bush's are hypocrits and liars.

You just don't get it. This is about phony documents and a story with no legs. It has nothing to do with physicals or training.

I reiterate: Rather is a total disgrace.

No, you don't get it, the story has plenty of substance,. Plenty of people who were there at the time and in a position to know coraborate the documents.

I never did like Rather, but I hope he wins some money in the deal and sheds some more light on the subject. The war president could use a good dose of some real "truth" about now.

 

[alchemize]

So did they ever figure out who forged the documents? Guess that doesn't matter, I mean there was only a Presidential election coming up.

George Bush should be suing Dan Rather and CBS/Viacom for $70 million.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So did they ever figure out who forged the documents? Guess that doesn't matter, I mean there was only a Presidential election coming up.

Doesn't matter, just like how voting problems only matter depending on the outcome.

George Bush should be suing Dan Rather and CBS/Viacom for $70 million.

Agreed.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So did they ever figure out who forged the documents?

Karl Rove. He pulled reverse psychology stunts like this before. It diverted the debate from Dub's desertion to Rather.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: alchemize
George Bush should be suing Dan Rather and CBS/Viacom for $70 million.

I'd like to see that, then he could be put on the stand... under oath.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'd like to see that, then he could be put on the stand... under oath.

Dan Rather? :laugh:

I'd like to see that myself.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I'd like to see that, then he could be put on the stand... under oath.

Dan Rather? :laugh:

I'd like to see that myself.

Rather and Bush, but we know Bush will never sue because he has nothing to gain and everthing to lose. The whole idea is just more BIG TALK from the nancy boys.

 

[alchemize]

I also think it's funny that those who rush to condemn the "swift boating" by a group of private citizens making accusations that might be true but can't be substantiated have no problem with a major news organization and top news anchor doing the same.

Remember lefties, it's only hypocrisy if it involves sex and republicans.