Dan Rather is suing CBS and Viacom

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 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.

Maybe the swiftboaters should sue. I'd like to put them assholes on the stand, under oath too.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The lawsuit should be dismissed immediately.

Rather brought the pain on himself. He's a total disgrace to the profession.

..I think it's good. Rather is a high profile fraud and he needs to be exposed.

 

[Genx87]

I am curious, should danny win, will he take care of the people he scapegoated and were also fired?

btw I loved him blabbing about this is a fight for democracy and fighting the evil big corporate interests. Apparently he didnt feel the need to conduct this fight while drawing a paycheck from these corps, only after he was tossed out on his ass. What a noble man, somebody we should all look up to!

 

[Fern]

I saw Rather on TV today, he still claims that no one has proven that the documents (with Word font) were false/forged. He's detached from reality.

Moreover, he seems to imply some sort of new (highly relaxed) journalistic standard: If not proven false, it's OK. Instead don't go with it until verified. He's really trying to lower the *journalistic bar* to be one on par with the National Enquirer (like report some celebrity was drunk & high and had sex with their dog, go ahead and prove it false or we'll report it.)

Some of you think his trial will be some sort of referendum on GWB's service. Possibly, but I kinda doubt it, it's a contract dispute between Rather & CBS. It would be a bizarre turn of events to involve an unrelated party in such matters. I see zero opportunity to compel GWB etc to testify, or be subjected to subpeanas etc.

Not being privy to his contract details, no one knows what issue(s) are relevant to the case. E.g., even if stipulated that the documents were fraudulent, CBS may not have a right to terminate his services. Etc.

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Wow looks like Dan is as whacko as me eh, calling out the Government and Corporation control of the media:

9-21-2007 Rather: Government influencing newsrooms

Dan Rather said Thursday that the undue influence of the government and large corporations over newsrooms spurred his decision to file a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former parent company.

"Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
I saw Rather on TV today, he still claims that no one has proven that the documents (with Word font) were false/forged. He's detached from reality.

Question for you on the right who claim the documents are so 'obviously' fake:

I'm not posting a direct opinion here. How do you explain that the republican who led the investigation and condemned Rather and had millions spent to look into this finally wrote that the documents could not be proven either way, authentic or not? If it's so obvious, why didn't he easily have experts for those big bucks to say so?

 

[heartsurgeon]

But its still my understanding that the origin of the Burkett document is still not clear.

that's putting it kindly..

HERE WE GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Burkett initially told CBS News he got the documents from a fellow guardsman. But when CBS News Anchor Dan Rather interviewed Burkett this past weekend, he changed his story and said he got the documents from a different source -- one CBS News cannot verify.

Why did Burkett tell CBS News something he now says is not true? CBS News put the question to him.

Dan Rather: "Why did you mislead us?"

Bill Burkett: "Well, I didn't totally mislead you. I did mislead you on the one individual. You know, your staff pressured me to a point to reveal that source.

Rather: "Well, we were trying to get the chain of possession."

Burkett: "I understand that."

Rather: "And you said that you had received them from someone."

Burkett: "I understand that."

Rather: "We did pressure you to say well, you received them from someone ?"

Burkett: "Yes."

Rather: "And it's true. We pressured you. It was a very important point."

Burkett: "Yes ... "

Rather: "For us."

Burkett: "And I simply threw out a name ? that was basically I guess to take a little
pressure off for a moment."

Rather: "Have you forged anything?"

Burkett: "No sir."

Rather: "Have you faked anything?

Burkett: "No sir."

Rather: "But you did mislead us."

Burkett: "Yes, I misled."

Rather: "You, you lie, you"

Burkett: "yes, I did."

Rather:: "You lied to us. Why would I, or anyone, believe that you wouldn't mislead us about something else?"

Burkett: "I could understand that question. I can't. That's gonna have to be your judgment and anybody else's."

yes indeed Dan!! why believe any of it>???

"Where did the documents come from? We are told Bill Burkett informed CBS that a woman named 'Lucy Ramirez' arranged a drop of the documents to him. We are also told that Burkett declined to cooperate with the panel. And that's that. But what of Lucy Ramirez? Who is she? What was her role? Does she even exist? We don't know. Ramirez is referenced seven times (on pages 35, 210, and 211). Here is the report's final mention of her: '[CBS News, after the story aired] sent personnel into the field to attempt to find Ramirez and thus possibly to confirm the new account. This effort proved unsuccessful.' Exit Lucy Ramirez, stage left.

I believe Burkett stated the documents were handed to him by this woman, whom he did not know, in the parking lot of a Walmart!!!

In order to protect Ramirez from being traced as the source of the memos through DNA on the documents, Burkett then burned the original documents after making copies of them,

The CBS independent panel report did not specifically take up the question of whether the documents were forgeries, but retained a document expert, Peter Tytell, who concluded the documents used by CBS were most likely produced using modern technology.[73]

Rather is off his medications, and needs to be hospitalized...he's completely lost topuch with reality...it doesn't help that he has a snoozefest of a "news program" on HDTV...it's just awful...it's impossible to stay awake as Rather blithers on about this or that...

sad actually

 

[Pabster]

Looks like heartsurgeon summed this one up.

:thumbsup:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
I saw Rather on TV today, he still claims that no one has proven that the documents (with Word font) were false/forged. He's detached from reality.

Question for you on the right who claim the documents are so 'obviously' fake:

I'm not posting a direct opinion here. How do you explain that the republican who led the investigation and condemned Rather and had millions spent to look into this finally wrote that the documents could not be proven either way, authentic or not? If it's so obvious, why didn't he easily have experts for those big bucks to say so?

You'll note they avoid you. It's so much easier to ignore the facts and continue to bleat that Rather was personally responsible for knowing immediately something experts were unable to confirm after extensive examination. Meanwhile, they've successfully diverted the focus from the story, which is the whole point of their feigned outrage.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
I saw Rather on TV today, he still claims that no one has proven that the documents (with Word font) were false/forged. He's detached from reality.

Question for you on the right who claim the documents are so 'obviously' fake:

I'm not posting a direct opinion here. How do you explain that the republican who led the investigation and condemned Rather and had millions spent to look into this finally wrote that the documents could not be proven either way, authentic or not? If it's so obvious, why didn't he easily have experts for those big bucks to say so?

You'll note they avoid you. It's so much easier to ignore the facts and continue to bleat that Rather was personally responsible for knowing immediately something experts were unable to confirm after extensive examination. Meanwhile, they've successfully diverted the focus from the story, which is the whole point of their feigned outrage.

Anyone who actually bothered to read the "Republican" led investigation :roll: would know exactly why it could not be proven either way:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/..._report/CBS_Report.pdf

The Panel reaches no definitive conclusion as to whether the Killian documents are authentic. Given that the Killian documents are copies and not originals, that the author is deceased, that the Panel found no individual who knew about them when they were created, and that there is no clear chain of custody, it may be impossible for anyone to authenticate or discredit the documents.

And that's about all the Rather apologists look at in regard to the panel's findings. It does go on though:

However, based on a comparison to the official Bush records and the other data referred to in this Chapter, the Panel finds many reasons to question the document's authenticity. At a minimum, if the official Bush records had been compared carefully to the Killian documents prior to airing the September 8 segment, there would likely have been, in the Panel's view, enough issues raised to the prevent a rush to air within days of obtaining them.

iow, they can't debunk the documents themselves because Burkett admitted to destroying the originals. Since they were destroyed all that can be brought into question is their content. The Panel found that the content DID NOT pass muster. If you read their findings you'll see that too. That assumes that you don't, as Bowfinger puts it, "avoid the facts" because the facts show that the document contents were not consistent with official Bush military documents.

 

[Gaard]

So then when Fern says that Rather is "detached from reality" for stating the documents were never proven to be forgeries, he's offbase?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
I saw Rather on TV today, he still claims that no one has proven that the documents (with Word font) were false/forged. He's detached from reality.

Question for you on the right who claim the documents are so 'obviously' fake:

I'm not posting a direct opinion here. How do you explain that the republican who led the investigation and condemned Rather and had millions spent to look into this finally wrote that the documents could not be proven either way, authentic or not? If it's so obvious, why didn't he easily have experts for those big bucks to say so?

You'll note they avoid you. It's so much easier to ignore the facts and continue to bleat that Rather was personally responsible for knowing immediately something experts were unable to confirm after extensive examination. Meanwhile, they've successfully diverted the focus from the story, which is the whole point of their feigned outrage.

Nobody is avoiding him. You'll note that there are posts above yours with an adequate response. If they couldn't verified as *true* they just shouldn't have used, period.

What IS being avoided is my assertion about the lowering of journalistic standards. If you can't prove it true it's OK to run with it as long as it can't be proven false. See my example above.

Proving something is false, is by far the more difficult thing. How about asking someone to prove that they didn't sleep with a domesticated animal three years ago. No matter how unlikely an event, it's literally impossible to prove in all but the most extreme cases (e.g., being a maximun security prison at that time, even then who's to say the guards didn't bring a pet and make you perform) See how that works?

Fern

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard
So then when Fern says that Rather is "detached from reality" for stating the documents were never proven to be forgeries, he's offbase?

It also completely misses the point. It's not the detractor's responsibility to prove those documents were forged. It's Rather's responsibility to prove they were not forged. Since he can't produce the originals he cannot do that. Any other comments he's made are purely diversions. It's also, as Fern stated, shoddy journalism involving the worst sort of partisan hackery. All you have to do is read Mary Mape's latest bleatings on HuffPole to know that.

Edit: Inserted quote for clarity.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
So then when Fern says that Rather is "detached from reality" for stating the documents were never proven to be forgeries, he's offbase?

It also completely misses the point. It's not the detractor's responsibility to prove those documents were forged. It's Rather's responsibility to prove they were not forged. Since he can't produce the originals he cannot do that. Any other comments he's made are purely diversions. It's also, as Fern stated, shoddy journalism involving the worst sort of partisan hackery. All you have to do is read Mary Mape's latest bleatings on HuffPole to know that.

Edit: Inserted quote for clarity.

I don't know if we can conclude that Rather is guilty of the worse form of Partisan hackery, but at present, until an original is produced, we cannot conclude Rather is correct. And its beating a dead horse on that until new evidence surfaces. But clever forgeries abound, look how long it took to debunk the Shroud of Turin, Piltdown Man, and the sensations caused when Einstien came and debunked some of the most established scientific assumptions. I for one view Rather in the light of a partial victim who should have been less gullible.

1. But I think this thread is missing the thesis of the lawsuit which will probably fought over narrow contractual language and the questions if Rather was scapegoated for the failures of others more responsible for document authentication for the political gain of CBS. Until the suit is tried, those details won't be clear. And if the suit is dismissed they won't matter.

2. And the lawsuit will also reignite efforts to find the missing originals. Maybe it will now surface and answer the real questions about GWB's service record.

So no sense speculating on the yet unknown on this thread.

 

[heartsurgeon]

the lawsuit will also reignite efforts to find the missing originals

do you read anything before you post??

the provenance of the "documents" is so shady as to defy any reason or logic...
from the fictitious hands of "Lucy Ramirez" to the sweaty hands of that gonif Bill Burkett...handed off in the parking lot of a WalMart, then faxed to CBS NEWS from a Kinko's...and then incinerated by Burkett to "destroy traces of Lucy Ramirez's DNA" so she cannot be traced...


and you still believe there are "originals"


Rather has dropped a little to much acid in his day....he is "off the reservation", "loco"

I suspect he's trying to drum up publicity either for an upcoming book, or his dying news cast on HDTV.....

i believ it's called being an attention whore

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
So then when Fern says that Rather is "detached from reality" for stating the documents were never proven to be forgeries, he's offbase?

It also completely misses the point. It's not the detractor's responsibility to prove those documents were forged. It's Rather's responsibility to prove they were not forged. Since he can't produce the originals he cannot do that. Any other comments he's made are purely diversions. It's also, as Fern stated, shoddy journalism involving the worst sort of partisan hackery. All you have to do is read Mary Mape's latest bleatings on HuffPole to know that.

Edit: Inserted quote for clarity.

I don't know if we can conclude that Rather is guilty of the worse form of Partisan hackery, but at present, until an original is produced, we cannot conclude Rather is correct. And its beating a dead horse on that until new evidence surfaces. But clever forgeries abound, look how long it took to debunk the Shroud of Turin, Piltdown Man, and the sensations caused when Einstien came and debunked some of the most established scientific assumptions. I for one view Rather in the light of a partial victim who should have been less gullible.

1. But I think this thread is missing the thesis of the lawsuit which will probably fought over narrow contractual language and the questions if Rather was scapegoated for the failures of others more responsible for document authentication for the political gain of CBS. Until the suit is tried, those details won't be clear. And if the suit is dismissed they won't matter.

2. And the lawsuit will also reignite efforts to find the missing originals. Maybe it will now surface and answer the real questions about GWB's service record.

So no sense speculating on the yet unknown on this thread.

If you believe Burkett the originals can never be produced because he allegedly burned them.

Not only that, but a large number of document experts have looked at the Killian documents and have not only discounted them for improper terminology - even Killian's secetary sai she didn't type them - but even if they were created on one of two of the very specific new typewriters that could produce the same sort of memo, Killian's secretary said she never used such equipment at the time.

So just about everything points to the documents being forgeries of some sort. The only evidence missing are the originals. To assume the originals MUST be produced to prove the forgery claims, despite the preponderance of evidence that they are forgeries, is like a creationist who will only believe that Australopithecus was one of man's ancestors if you can show him a live one.

 

[Lemon law]

No TLC,

There is a faith based belief that the actual original GWB service records have been edited and removed by special interests trying to protect GWB. In something as massive as military data bases, removing every record is almost impossible and its also possible that those who were charged with removing such documents may have saved some for reasons of their own. Just finding one missing original would be huge. But beating the dead horse of what Killian produced is futile.

In short, we are looking for the smoking gun, and in responsible conspiracy theories, its possible to hypothesize that at some future date such a missing original that is not a forgery may turn up, its only irresponsible to say it will certainly turn up and in exactly what form. And equally irresponsible to say that nothing more definitive will never turn up. An example of that is in the area of watergate, where the actual much speculated on identity of deepthroat finally surfaced. Your deflection, TLC is setting up the strawman that anyone who is responsible has any faith that the Killian document will answer anything.

It is and remains true. Better documents pertaining to GWB service records may surface and hence would be in the missing category. And hence worth searching for.

You TLC cannot logically say they will never turn up. Nor can you refute the Rather suit may be a root cause for a renewed search that causes them to surface.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No TLC,

There is a faith based belief that the actual original GWB service records have been edited and removed by special interests trying to protect GWB. In something as massive as military data bases, removing every record is almost impossible and its also possible that those who were charged with removing such documents may have saved some for reasons of their own. Just finding one missing original would be huge. But beating the dead horse of what Killian produced is futile.

In short, we are looking for the smoking gun, and in responsible conspiracy theories, its possible to hypothesize that at some future date such a missing original that is not a forgery may turn up, its only irresponsible to say it will certainly turn up and in exactly what form. And equally irresponsible to say that nothing more definitive will never turn up. An example of that is in the area of watergate, where the actual much speculated on identity of deepthroat finally surfaced. Your deflection, TLC is setting up the strawman that anyone who is responsible has any faith that the Killian document will answer anything.

It is and remains true. Better documents pertaining to GWB service records may surface and hence would be in the missing category. And hence worth searching for.

You TLC cannot logically say they will never turn up. Nor can you refute the Rather suit may be a root cause for a renewed search that causes them to surface.

I can definitely "logically" say they will never turn up. However, that cannot be stated unequivocally. The difference is that Burkett already said he burned the originals, so logically it can be assumed they are no more. Is there a chance the originals are still around? Sure. That assumes Burkett was lying and that since he's an admitted liar he didn't actually burn them. That also assumes we can track down this mysterious Lucy Ramirez to coroborate Burkett's story, assuming Burkett wasn't lying about her too.

But even if we find the originals they most likely will only serve to prove beyond any doubt that these were fakes. There are far, far too many other issues with the copies that finding the originals could not possibly overcome.

So you'll just have to settle on "Fake, but accurate." as the best you're ever going to spin from it.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 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.

Maybe the swiftboaters should sue. I'd like to put them assholes on the stand, under oath too.

Sure, that'd be great. Kerry could be subpoenaed to release his full military records too and the truth would be settled.

 

[Lemon law]

TLC your first fallacy is in assuming that I am trying to spin anything by saying---So you'll just have to settle on "Fake, but accurate." as the best you're ever going to spin from it.

Your second fallacy is that documents that shed light on the broader question of GWB's service record have to be restricted to just the form of the Killian contention.

Your third fallacy may be in assuming any later found documents must of necessity prove the guilt of GWB. They might also point to his innocence.

Its ultimately a detective question. If a tree fell in the forest, can we find anyone who heard it and in falling, what trace evidence did it leave about exactly how it fell?
To not ask the logical questions is stupid, to speculate too far past the facts is irresponsible.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC your first fallacy is in assuming that I am trying to spin anything by saying---So you'll just have to settle on "Fake, but accurate." as the best you're ever going to spin from it.

Your second fallacy is that documents that shed light on the broader question of GWB's service record have to be restricted to just the form of the Killian contention.

Your third fallacy may be in assuming any later found documents must of necessity prove the guilt of GWB. They might also point to his innocence.

Its ultimately a detective question. If a tree fell in the forest, can we find anyone who heard it and in falling, what trace evidence did it leave about exactly how it fell?
To not ask the logical questions is stupid, to speculate too far past the facts is irresponsible.

Erm...yeah. While you whack off to your BDS porn and completely dodge everything I just said, I'll roll my eyes. :roll: