Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dan Rather from March 14, 1996 CBS Evening News:
"In tonight's Eye on America, a look beyond the heat to try to shed some light on a growing national problem: Americans who some of them will sue at the drop of a hat."
What he once reported as once a problem is now apparently less so.
Dan rather LIES on National TV, knows the story is a lie and now is sueing CBS. Not that I care what happens to CBS but this is ignorant.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_en_tv/rather_lawsuit
Did he lie? Prove it. In fact, I don't believe he did lie. I think he should have dug a little more, but he didn't lie. Also, I am not convinced that what he said wasn't true either...he just didn't prove it...
Did he lie? Prove it. In fact, I don't believe he did lie. I think he should have dug a little more, but he didn't lie. Also, I am not convinced that what he said wasn't true either...he just didn't prove it...
When passing off doctored records, easily verified to be doctored, by a long time media reporter, to me that qualifies as lying. IT was EASILY verified they were not legitimate records.
You're both being silly and showing your incredible bias. Lying is willfully passing off something as true that isn't. Your definitions don't even pass the giggle test. He shoulda done more research for sure, and he did/does have an axe to grind, but he wasn't that far from the truth even when he did admit Burkett wasn't on the up-and-up with him. Even Bush's ex commander's secretary said the guts of the information was true. What matters more, the truth or how it is told?
On September 8, 2004, Rather reported on 60 Minutes Wednesday that a series of documents concerning President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record had been discovered in the personal files of Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, in which Bush was found unfit for flight status after failing to obey an order to submit to a physical examination. The authenticity of these documents was quickly called into question by both conservative and liberal bloggers; by September 10, stories in media outlets including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times examined the documents' authenticity. Rather and CBS vigorously defended the story, insisting that the documents had been authenticated by experts. However, CBS was contradicted by some of the experts it originally cited, and later reported that their source for the documents, former Texas Army National Guard officer Bill Burkett, had misled the network about how he had obtained them. Rather held a one-on-one interview with Killian's personal secretary who vouched for the contents of the documents although she did not authenticate the documents in question themselves, which suggested that the documents were recreations of originals made from poor reproductions or from memory.[3] On September 20, CBS retracted the story. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[4] The controversy has been referred to by some as "Memogate" and "Rathergate." Following an independent investigation commissioned by CBS, CBS fired story producer Mary Mapes and asked three other producers connected with the story to resign. Rather's retirement was directly hastened by this incident, and many believe that he would otherwise have stepped down in March 2006, 25 years after beginning as anchor.[citation needed] The Burkett documents are popularly believed to be forgeries created by making hazy photocopies of computer-generated documents crafted using Microsoft Word's default font settings, but no one has ever proved them to be so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather#Killian_documents
I don't think so, this is well documented:
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=11685&highlight=charles+johnson
notice the post date...
Your link proves nothing...(shrug)..just offers another opinion. Now, I don't have a problem with the docos being a fraud (IOW, I believe they are), what I do have a problem with is 1) Whether Rather actually knew they were and represented them as fact anyway 2) Whether what really happened did in fact happen. Having coming to know Bush - both listening to him and reading about him from both the left and right - this certainly fits his MO - ie: he is an amiable enough bloke from a privileged background who ain't the smartest cookie in the jar and is basically quite lazy and has tended to skate along on easy street with as little effort as possible. So I tend to the believe the secretary.
Did he lie? Prove it. In fact, I don't believe he did lie. I think he should have dug a little more, but he didn't lie. Also, I am not convinced that what he said wasn't true either...he just didn't prove it...
Proves a lot. It was obvious. Unless he was an idiot, which is unlikely given his position over time, he just went along. Only an idiot would argue against that.
Doesn't prove squat. Even the guy writing your link - going by his own writing - showed bias against Rather. Only an idiot would take the word of a biased writer...
Ahh so you don't believe what any liberal says? After all they are all biased aren't they?
Dr Grump- Did he lie? Prove it. In fact, I don't believe he did lie. I think he should have dug a little more, but he didn't lie.
actually, yes he did lie. Its been proven. I hope he doesn't see a dime.
Its arrogant for Rather to assume he is owed this money.
omg....we agreeHe probably knew the information he recieved was bogus, he just didn't care.
Rather is one rather dumb chump.
