In order to head off any confusion – or at least to try to head off any confusion — let me state as clearly as I can right here at the outset that I am not breaking news in this column about Dan Rather, the young George Bush and the Vietnam War. I have written about the vignette that follows before, in my book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America – and much of what I write here, I took from that book. Jonah Goldberg (no relation) also mentioned this tidbit about Mr. Rather in a 2004 piece for National Review Online. So why dredge up “old” news? Because “news” is what people don’t know – even if it is “old.” And since the whole mess with Rather’s 60 Minutes Wednesday story will be back in the news when his $70 million dollar lawsuit against his old employer goes to trial (if it’s not settled out of court), I thought some of you might find this column interesting. I’m sure for almost all of you, this “old” news … will be news!
******
In August 2004, when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were taking aim at John Kerry and causing a lot of damage, a prominent journalist told a national magazine that, “In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn’t do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns.”
That article came out in the August 30, 2004 edition of Broadcasting & Cable magazine. But what the prominent journalist did not bother revealing was that at the very time he was saying John Kerry’s Vietnam record was irrelevant, he himself was working on a story that would air on a major national television news program, just days later … about – take a deep breath! – George W. Bush and what he did or didn’t do during the Vietnam War!
Now take a guess who that prominent journalist was.
Times up.
If you said Dan Rather, give yourself a gold star.
The story, which aired on the weekday edition of 60 Minutes on September 8, 2004, has come to be known as “Rathergate” — a name it got, as just about everybody knows, because the documents Rather used to back up his story (about George Bush joining the Air National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam) could not be verified as real … and may in fact be downright forgeries.
So how was it that when John Kerry was taking fire from critics, Dan Rather thought Vietnam was ancient history – but just eight days later, the same Dan Rather was putting George W. Bush in the crosshairs on national television and all of a sudden Vietnam was as relevant as could be?
Could it be that Dan Rather was taking sides, that he was recklessly using his substantial power to further a liberal Democrat’s cause at the expense of a conservative Republican?
Naah!
Just ask Dan Rather, who, whenever he’s been questioned over the years about liberal bias, has always given the same answer: “I’m in favor of a strong defense, tight money, and clean water. I don’t know what that makes me. But whatever that makes me, that’s what I am.”
With all due respect, what that makes you, Dan, is disingenuous at best and delusional at worst.
For whatever reason, this story never gained traction, though, I readily admit, I find it fascinating. There is something way beyond creepy about Dan Rather (or anyone else, for that matter) telling a national magazine that Vietnam was not relevant to the presidential campaign while he was putting the final touches on a story about Vietnam and the presidential campaign.
What in the world could Rather have been thinking? Didn’t he worry about how it would look when his 60 Minutes Wednesday piece came out? But, as with so many things, Dan apparently wasn’t concerned – and now, he tells us he’s not concerned about his legacy either.
In an August 16, 2009 article about his lawsuit against CBS, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Rather said he doesn’t fret about his legacy. ‘My record is my record,’ he said, ticking off the tent-pole events of the last half-century that he has covered: the assassination of President Kennedy, Watergate, the Gulf War, the Iraq war, Tiananmen Square, the Sept. 11 attacks.
“But will this particular story forever overshadow all of that? The usually loquacious newsman leaned back in his chair, silent for a moment.
‘I have no idea,’ he said quietly. ‘Ever is a long time.’”
Get Bernie's new Best Seller. Click on the Amazon icon below for more info.
I thought Bernie and his readers might like to read this take on the “Rathegate” story and the accompanying Rather/CBS lawsuit saga.
MEDIA MADNESS: (OPINION) DAN RATHER LAWSUIT DISMISSED BY NY APPEALS COURT ONE MORE FORMER DISGRUNTLED CBS NEWS EMPLOYEE
http://theenterprisereport.typepad.com/news/2009/09/media-madness-opinion-one-more-disgruntled-cbs-news-employee-dan-rather-lawsuit-dismissed-by-ny-appe.html
Dan Eastwood (sep 3 wrote: “…go ahead and name the health care bill for Kennedy, but call it the Kennedy/Kopechne bill…”
He has has a good point.
Health care with reform is destined to cost more than its worth, just like the housing crisis.
So one could say, health care reform will also be “underwater.”
At age 60, I vividly remember a Presidential news conference during Watergate. When President Nixon called on Dan Rather, Rather received a sounding round of applause from his peers. President Nixon playfully asked Rather if he were “running for something”. Rather answered in a most vitriolic tone, “No, Mr. President, are you?”
I never watched Rather again. His disrepect for the President was so plainly evident. President Nixon did not respond to this, and the news conference went on.
It is difficult for me now to comprehend the avid media protection of Obama. A third rate burglary, and even the coverup afterward, do not compare to this liar in the White House.
Bill- You need to go back to Harvard for remedial reading course on understanding the written facts. Good Luck!
I have some suspicious and incriminating documents that show that Barack Obama is, in fact, the notorious Amabo Kcarab, wanted in 13 states for general idiocy. Please tell Mr. Rather to be careful with these documents, as they are on heavy contruction paper which may crack if folded and srtuffed into pants to be smuggled out of the national archives. Also, the text is in crayon, which may smear.
hmmm, i remember the ‘early-out’ push in the army in 1969. it was offered to me, in fact, but
i was having too much fun at ft. bliss, tx, repairing hawk missile radar units and also working/learning to be an a&e mechanic at biggs afb. i would have lost the a&e training if i opted-out early. fwiw. thanksforyoursupport.
Thanks again Bernie. And most of do get the hypocrisy.
Mr. Goldberg,
Maybe to Rather Vietnam wasn’t relevant in that getting George Bush was. Vietnam, to Rather, was just a secondary device to use for the primarily relevant agenda of getting Bush.
Just like his ‘calling’ Florida (eastern timezone) for Kerry 1hr before polls closed in western panhandle Florida (central timezone) where a military Air Force base was located.
Bernie:
Oh God.The last time you spoke to Dan Rather was when? He spoke you do, you did not speak to him unless you name is Moses. Did you wash your hands.
Mr. Goldgerg,
Given your tilt concerning Rater I thought you might get a chuckle out of this story.
I’m a retired Naval officer, in late 1978 or early 79 I was a Chief Petty Officer in Hawaii.
I had taken off early and stopped at the Chiefs club before going home. While there I struck up a conversation with a Marine Sgt Major. We had both been in Viet Nam and were swapping stories, when the cbs news came on the bars TV and I asked the sargent to standby I wanted to watch Rather.
The Marine chuckled and said you watch that phoney S.O.B.? I asked what he ment.
He then told me that in the middle of a two week stand down in hostilities, (I think he said it was 1972), he and his squad were resting by their APC, when Rather and his cameraman came by and asked if there was anything happening, any action. The sgt said he told him no. At that he said Rather said can you give me anything I haven’t had a report shown on the air in two weeks and that’s a lifetime in my business. the sargent said told Rather “I can give you a Mad Minute”. Rather thought for a monent then said I’ll take it. He said that Rather crouched beside the APC, got he camera in position and said go. The squad open up into an empty field.
He said that Rather started recording saying ” The rest of Viet Nam may be quite, but here near the DMZ this squad of Marines has their hands full…., the sargent told me that Rather looked like he was having too much fun so he “pickled off” a few rounds against the APC near Rather. He said Rather nearly wet himself. The sargent said that it turned out to be a pretty important story and by doing that for him he had probably made that S.O.B’s. carreer. ( The Sargent said they were no where near the DMZ)
Since my encounter with the Sgt Maj that afternoon 30 years, I have not watched Dan Rather. (I think the Marine who told me the story was named Wilson?.)
Mr. Obama: You are an unprecedented magician. With not so much as an abracadabra, nor even raising one foot, you have vaulted over the United States Constitution as if it were only a puddle of dirty water on the ground. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution states, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.”
Notwithstanding Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, you have appointed more than 30 persons to important United States offices and have given them the title of “Czar,” and have given them the power to make laws (under the guise of “rules and regulations”) and to act as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in the enforcement of those laws against the citizens of the United States.
There can be no question that “Czar” is a Title of Nobility, because it was the title of the rulers of Russia for 370 years, beginning with “Ivan the Terrible” in the year 1547, and up to the Communist revolution in the year 1917.
The fact that at least one of the appointees is an admitted Communist does not qualify him for the title of “Czar.”
Mr. Obama, even though you are a great magician, you cannot pull out of any hat an excuse for treating our Constitution like a puddle of dirty water. You can, however, move to partially redeem your indiscretion by renaming your own private “Czars” and discontinuing the use of that title in connection with U. S. Government appointees.
September 4, 2009
Brilliant!
This is scary. Really scary. I don’t like the direction this country is heading. I don’t trust the media to tell me the truth. I don’t trust the people running the government. I’m not a political analyst or an ivy league graduate, but none of this is right and I know that. We all know that, why is this happening? Isn’t the Constitution supposed to protect us from things like this? Aren’t all branches of government subject to The Constitution and Bill of Rights? No exceptions? Why are those documents so irrelevent now? What went wrong?
“I’m sure for almost all of you, this “old” news … will be news!”
I’m sorry. but I am missing it. Maybe it’s a “jounalism” thing that I just don’t get, living in the real world that I must.
Exactly what is the premise here that is news worthy, old or new? That Dan Rather is a hypocrite for saying one thing when it supports John Kerry’s cause, and, eight days later a countervailing commentary when it can thwart George Bush’s campaign? Well, d’uh! Outside of the Columbia Journalism Review, New York Times, and Slate, who doesn’t know that?
So what is it we are supposed to take away from this long awaited Rathergate Part II “News Is What You Don’t Know”? That we didn’t know that Dan Rather was an extremely biased, left-wing ideologue who along with his loony producer Mapes and Democrat-operative daughter would do anything to advance Democrat success and Republican failure? We knew that way back from Rather’s contempt for Richard Nixon.
The real “news” that Bernie should be digging in on is that the upcoming Rather vs. CBS lawsuit is a suicide pact for both parties. Like all zealots, Rather is delusional in thinking that the courtroom proceedings will somehow exonerate him whereas all evidence instead will amplify his failings and malfeasance. CBS knows that even though they will probably beat Rather handily, the discovery and testimony stages will show that their highly-touted Thornburgh Panel was rife with obfuscations and intentional coverups which, while not exculpating Rather, will reveal the duplicitous behavior of CBS itself in not only attempting to avoid lawsuits, but to keep some of them out of jail.
If Rather knew the right witnesses to call, the ones he should have called back in Rathergate rather than the ignoramuses he and Mapes used, he could hurt CBS’ defense – but even worse, his own case. Instead, CBS will buy Rather off to block revelation of information that will make them look bad, even though it would have killed Rather’s claims.
So where’s the “news”? Given the trendlines, I hope there’s no Rathergate Part III.
And Bernie, you need to give credit to a lot of others who revealed all of these things way back in 2004 but were ignored or reviled by the MSM too busy comparing notes among themselves and concealing vital information detrimental to John Kerry. The MSM lessons learned from that campaign reached fruition in the Obama Sycophancy of 2008.
Here’s some food for thought regarding the WMD’s:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100517
Has anyone in the liberal media reported on this?
Whoa! I just clicked on the link you provided.
That is as scary as it gets.
With hundreds of thousands of miles of underground pipelines in the US and so many unsecured ways to access them, the worst case scenario could very well be in the planning stage right now.
I didn’t understand what “liberal media bias” meant until 2004. I think I’d heard the term before that, but didn’t know what it meant and didn’t care. On Election Day, 2004, my uncle said to me: “Watch both CNN and Fox News today. Turn back and forth between the 2 networks. CNN has the liberal Ted Turner/Jane Fonda connection. You will see the difference in the coverage.” Sure enough, I was amazed at the difference. It was at that point I gave up on CNN and switched to Fox News for good. And it was my first lesson in media bias. In 2008, liberal media bias went to a whole different level. It was terrifying – like watching the country being transformed into a dictatorship or something.
What Dan Rather has done all these years is really disgraceful. And he was the CBS News anchor for 25 years! Talk about mind control- because that what liberal media bias is – a form of mind control. And don’t get me started about the war in Iraq. It took a lot of guts for George W. Bush to go into Iraq and clean up his father’s mess. I never understood why Bush, Sr. allowed Sadaam to remain in power after the first Iraq war. He (Bush Sr) knew that Sadaam was a maniac and a mass murderer. He knew Sadaam was a menace to the region. So you think somebody like that is going honor a peace treaty? And Bush Sr also knew Hussein had WMD’s – he gassed his own people! Be honest, would you really feel safe at night knowing Sadaam was still in power now?
I want to add one more thing regarding the WMD argument. Much has been said in the liberal media about us not finding any WMD’s in Iraq. Think about this, if you were Sadaam Hussein and you knew the USA was coming after you, would you really leave any weapons of mass destruction laying around for our troops to find? I know I wouldn’t!
I hope that people in this country will wake up, the way I did, and realize the danger of people like Dan Rather and the rest of the liberal media. Their job is to present unbiased facts and not get their boy elected to the White House or control public opinion with their own liberal slant. Dan Rather got fired and good riddance to him. It should have happened years ago.
I am over 80 years old. IT WAS IRAQ. Dam rather shot a 2 minute night piece with him under fire in green and blue light. The Marines with him were wearing jungle cam and all was neatly pressed and looked like they had just come from the tailor’s shop. They had on WW II helmets and carried M14s. The sound effects were great as the wind blew against the microphone but not a grain of sand was moving. I have not laughed so much when in a Hollywood movie I saw a squad of GIs walk through a hay field in the hot sun. kicking up no gnats and casting no shadows. This was when we were drafting vampires
I am over 80 years old and helped me remember. IT WAS IRAQ. Dan Rather shot and out on the air a 2 minute piece in green and blue light where here was under fire in an engagement wearing some sort of garb and the “Marines” with him were wearing jungle camo and all had M14 riflles with WW II helmets. The sound effects were great with a strong wind blowing against the microphone but not grain of sand was moving. The uniforms were knife pressed and looked like they had just come from the tailor’s shop. I have never seen anything so funny as another Hollywood movie where a squad of GIs were walking across a hay field in the hot bright sun not kicking up gnats or casting a shadow (s). That was when we only drafted vampires.
I was really grateful to hear you tell Laura Ingraham tonight that the story about Diane Sawyer replacing Gibson at ABC is not big news (since the lamestream media is no longer the powerful force it once was – or words to that effect). What a refreshing viewpoint! –
I found it ironic then – that in the very next segment – you and Laura discussed the pathetic way that the liberals are ignoring the huge success and domininance of conservative books in the non-fiction market.
I look forward to the day when we conservatives can finally stop looking over our shoulders at what the old-line networks are saying about us… Thanks for introducing us to that day in your comments tonight.
Further to my earlier comments (& to tie them in to your article), it gets a little tiring hearing conservative media accuse the left of hypocrisy as if the liberals care about whether or not they are hypocritical.
Ann Coulter’s excellent book on How To Argue With a Liberal (If You Must) – in the feature article – makes the point quite accurately that arguing with liberals is a waste of time precisely because they do not care about the truth. That’s what makes Ann’s zingers so devastating – she doesn’t sit there arguing, she just draws the logical (and accurate!) conclusions from what the liberals are saying and states these. Ann even says that if you don’t leave them sputtering then you’re not doing it right.
What is the point in resisting the liberals’ arguments as if they were also searching for some common truth? How many years now has Sean Hannity been dragging out lists of all the hypocritical statements and actions of liberals – yet is there still no shortage of material for his skewering? Could it be that the only ones who care about hypocrisy are his conservative viewers who enjoy snickering at liberals, but aren’t the choir members the only ones listening? Maybe it’s time to take a page from Saul Alinsky’s book and start really embarrassing the liberals with comments that leave them sputtering because the truth is they really don’t care about people the way they claim they do.
(Example – go ahead and name the healthcare bill for Kennedy, but call it the Kennedy/Kopechne bill, since we can expect a Federal-run health care plan to provide at least as much care for us as Teddy showed for Mary Jo.)
Why not point out that liberals are (for the most part) self-centered, spoiled brats who want to be protected from the consequences of their own poor decisions and will vote for anyone willing to make that happen – even though it must be at the expense of their fellow citizens. It’s not that conservatives don’t also make poor decisions – but they differ in their willingness to be responsible for them… like the guy who called Mark Levin’s radio show today and said that even though his home was foreclosed recently, and he was living in a camper-van, he still wouldn’t want any government help.
I’d like to see a new movement among conservatives to stop thinking that it will be enough to just point out liberal hypocrisy. It’s become such a broken record – and no one on the left cares anyway. If anything they learn new ways of manipulation by hearing what other liberals came up with. If there’s no consequence other than making conservatives mad, then why should they stop?
Instead, lets promote how conservatives believe that we are all responsible for our own decisions and our own lives – & that indeed this is our only access to the happiness that our founding fathers granted us the freedom to pursue.
Some will succeed more than others, but their successes will bring all of us up with them as they will create jobs and increase productivity in ways that all the tears and whining of the liberals can never achieve. Keep hammering away at how unsuccessful liberal programs have been (The Great Society, Social Security, etc), and actively promote conservative viewpoints.
It is not enough to merely point out liberal hypocrisy. That isn’t working. We must take the conversation much further – especially now that the mainstream media is being seen for its irrelevance.
I’m kind of the opinion we should let Dan and Mary Mapes rest peacefully in their private little reality. They’re not hurting anyone there.
I spent 20 years in the Air Force, 8 of those as a pilot in flying squadrons. I’m also one of the 3 or 4 people outside of Mary Mapes’ family who read her book. My copy has nearly as much ink in margin notes as in the text.
In describing her treatment in the press as the story fell apart, she says, “Not one article ever got the details correct, and news coverage invariably mischaracterized key elements. It was frightening and chilling to see how inaccurate the nation’s best newspapers were, how much they speculated and twisted what they reported, either ignorantly or deliberately.” My margin note says, “So how’s it feel?”
It was interesting to read Mapes’ book. It’s well written, and clearly shows her thought processes, so it’s easy to see every place she runs off the rails. And she does that a lot. It was funny to see her talk about how the military documents look intimidating at first, but once you get into it, they’re not that difficult to understand. Meanwhile, she’s demonstrating that she didn’t understand nearly as much as she thought she did.
She makes much of the fact that Bush packed many months of drill time into a few months in order to be released early, so he could attend Harvard Business School. And she completely misses the fact that this was during the post-Vietnam RIF (reduction in force) of 1973. It was common to use unusual means to get people out early in that year. It was quite a traumatic time and the survivors were still talking about it when I joined in 1978. Many combat veteran pilots were forced out, but still wanted to maintain an Air Force connection, so volunteered for the Guard. The ANG was suddenly flush with experienced pilots, and no longer needed low-time pilots like 1Lt Bush to fill the cockpits. In fact, some active duty officers were allowed to finish pilot training and then released from the Air Force, no strings attached. Letting a Guardsman finish all his required duty a few months early was mild by comparison.
She tried to make the case that Bush went “AWOL” when he moved to Alabama to help in a political campaign. She said he performed no duty that summer, but apparently didn’t realize she had in her posession a letter that retroactively negated any duty he may have performed that summer. There could be no surviving record of any such duty.
She used a (forged) letter purporting to “order” Lt Bush to get a flight physical, to try to make the case he disobeyed the order. She was unaware of the Air Force regulation that would have superceded that letter if Lt Bush was not going to be flying. In fact, she remained completely oblivious to the fundamental difference between, say AFR 160-43 (which talked about flight physicals) and AFM 35-13 (referenced in the letter)–that is, the fundamental difference between a regulation and a manual, in the nomenclature of the day.
That letter is my personal favorite, a real howler. The format is completely wrong, it was sent to the wrong address, and the two paragraphs are mutually contradictory. That first paragraph by itself is gibberish. He’s ordered to report to his squadron commander for a physical–personally, I always reported the flight surgeon for mine. I’m quite sure my squadron commander didn’t want to be performing my physical exams, nor would I want him to. The May 14th deadline makes no sense (his previous physical would remain current until 31 July), and some manual is cited as authority–should be a regulation, probably AFR 160-43.
No admin sergeant I ever met would have let that abomination out of the office, and whoever produced it would be in for some severe remedial training. As a flight crew scheduler, I sent out those letters, and they looked nothing like this. Oh, well, it didn’t have to get past me or an admin sergeant; it only had to get past Mapes and Rather. Piece of cake, considering they really wanted to believe it.
I could go on and on and on, but if you’re still reading this, you’re probably alone. It is ancient history, after all.
George Bush served his country honorably in a time of war, and deserves the thanks of us all, including the likes of Mary Mapes and Terry McAuliff. The fact that they, who would never have been caught dead within shouting distance of a recruiting office, presumed to lecture President Bush 35 years later that he didn’t do it right is laughable and sad all at once.
Ed “Fix” — how appropriate.
Dear Bernie:
I’ve seen some, of late, suggesting that Bush did not, in fact, volunteer for Vietnam. Some have even been calling on you to prove it. Perhaps you might do just that for a third installment of this missive.
As I recall what I read at the time of Rathergate, Bush did indeed volunteer for Vietnam and was turned down not only because he did not have the requisite number of flight hours, but because there were sufficient career regular Air Force pilots available, the air war was beginning to wind down and because he flew an obsolete interceptor (F102) that was not used in that conflict. Retraining for the aircraft that were in use would have been a possibility if the war was going to continue full bore into the foreseeable future and if there was a need for pilots, but an impossibility otherwise, as was the case for Bush. This is so because such retraining takes many months, if not years, and regular AF pilots, particularly in those days, had preference. I also recall that all of this was confirmed not only by Bush’s peers in the TANG, but by his commanding officers and documents from the time. Of course, this part of the story was ignored, if not actively suppressed by the MSM.
Thanks for your good work.
Bernie, I thought I heard many years ago, which is why I can’t remember the exact details, but it was early in Dan’s career that he on a tour bus for , I think a democrat in a presidentail campaign up in Michigan and there were a lot of demonstators along the road the bus was traveling and someone suggested that he report on the demonstrators in his news broadcast later and he declared ” I will decide what the news is “. All I can remember about the incident was it was a presidential campaign and it was in Michigan.
See what you remember or can dig up. Thanks for all your insight on the state of events in today’s world.
It didn’t start with George Bush. In 1988, Dan Rather hosted an award winning “Documentary” about Viet Nam Veterans and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD). It was the starting point for labeling Viet Nam Veterans as Broken Sociopaths and walking time bombs.
It had all the journalistic integrity as the George Bush piece.
You can find details in the Book “Stolen Valor” by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley.
It is in Chapter 5, pages 87-108. The book was published by Verity Press Inc. Dallas Texas1998. If you cannot find a copy, I will be happy to send you mine.
Thank You,
Joseph (Philly Joe) Kolodziejski
Do you have a newsletter? If so, please put me on your email list.
I see where you are in North Carolina. Are you in Raleigh? I live in North Raleigh and have a small real estate company with my son.
Anne Parker
Bernie,
I think you have nailed this nicely. Dan Rather screwed up for political purposes and got fried for doing it. Anyone who misses your point is likely to be a political zealot of the ilk of James Carville. Some folks just can’t admit when they’re wrong. The media bias is flagrant and no longer concealed.
Dan Rather is a legend in his own mind. Yes, the CBS new director called him and said “Dan, we got a big story brewing about (take your pick: the assassination of President Kennedy, Watergate, the Gulf War, the Iraq war, Tiananmen Square, the Sept. 11 attacks), so get your Texas born-n-bred butt there as fast as a hound dog in heat to cover the story so we can get it on TV tonight.” Dutifully, Rather and his TV crew book flights and they’re off to wherever. The guys gets his mug on prime time TV talking about what is happening and is paid millions for his work. In the down time “Mr. News” collects his awards, gets VIP treatment everywhere he goes, gives speaches, tells war stories about Ed Murrow and Uncle Walter and the “good ‘ol days of shoe-leather journalism. Fine. Great.
What is not explained is Rather’s blythe dismissal of years of reporting bias on matters political. Everyone other than his acolytes could see what Andy Rooney called Rather “transparent” liberalism. Rather would go after Bush 41 and Bush 43 with ferocity and absolute disdain (think Katie Couric covering any Republican), while worshipfully covering any Democrat, no matter what the story.
Does anyone recall Juanita Broadderick? Well, she’s the (Democrat) volunteer who claimed that Bill Clinton sexually asaulted her in Little Rock while Slick Willie was the Governor. Here, a sitting president of the United States was accused of sexual assault by a non-political, non-Republican woman who had credibility, the President would not release his itinerary for the day of the alleged assault, and Broadderick had much corroboration for her story. Dan Rather, Mr. CBS News, thought he’d pass on that little nothing story. He never coverd it and never discussed it other than to say “he” saw no story there. Well thank you, Mr. Rather.
Fast forward to 2004, on September 8, just weeks before a presidential election, Rather airs a story based upon questionable documents, obtained from a questionable source, in an attempt to derail Bush’s re-election. a 30-plus year-old story about George W. Bush, a fellow Texan who Rather obviously hated, was more relevant than a story about a possible rape allegation by a credible woman by the President of the United States. What more can you say?
Dan, just take your cabinet full of awards and accolades and go away. We don’t care about your lawsuit against CBS. We appreciate that you did your well-paid job for so many years, but frankly, my Dad worked his ass off all his life to support his family on less than what you pay in New York State taxes alone each year. Guess which one gets my respect. I don’t care if you stood in the rain to report on a hurricane. Geraldo Rivera has also done that. What good are you if you can’t tell the truth?
Of course this was an attempt by Rather to use his status as a prominent newscaster to influence an election. So let me get this straight: According to Mr. White, just because he (barely) failed in that attempt let’s all just forget about the whole thing. Of course this makes Rather the worst kind of hypocrite! Unfortunately, since the judicial system has been severely corrupted by the political culture along with the rest of our society, he will no doubt collect something from his wretched lawsuit.
I have fond memories of GHW Bush cleaning Rather’s clock during an interview when he was Vice-President when Rather tried to get him with a “gotcha” question, and part of this was probably Rather trying to take revenge on the family.
Mr. Goldberg,
Thank you for the insightful articles. If you don’t mind me asking, when was the last time you spoke with Mr. Rather? Has he spoken to you since you published Bias?
The last time Dan and I spoke was in February 1996. I had just told him I wrote an op ed for the Wall Street Journal about liberal bias in the news and that it would be in the next day’s paper. That was it. Not a syllable since.
Now you can write an updated version of this http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001668 in reverse talking about the same now happening in the new conservative media.
For anyone interested in Dan Rather’s military service google.. ‘Dan Rather is not an EX-Marine’. I think you will find it very interesting.
Bernie, Part II is extremely disappointing. It was no secret to anyone that Dan Rather and George H.W. Bush did not see eye to eye on much of anything. There was obviously bad blood between them but this does not necessarily make Dan Rather a hypocrite like this article makes him out to be. Even if it turned out that Dan let his dislike for George H.W. Bush get the better of him, what damage was done? The guy lost his job and Bush got reelected.
The problem with this article is that it completely ignores the hypocrisy that did irreparable damage to our Country. George W. Bush, after cowardly using his Father’s political influence to avoid going to war for his Country himself, sent other peoples sons and daughters to fight in a senseless war that he himself started without hesitation. Worst of all is that Bush launched his invasion and occupation of Iraq based on false “intelligence”. The real counterfeit documents story that Bernie should be covering is: The documents Bush used as a pretext to justify his march to war against Iraq (about Sadham Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction) could not be verified as real … and every one of them turned out to in fact be downright forgeries.
The men and women who served in Bush’s fabricated war who are living with mental anguish, deformities and lost limbs are living testimonials to the hypocrisy of George W. Bush.
I frankly couldn’t care less if you and I agree on anything. But you can’t possibly be so dense as to not see the hypocrisy at play here: Rather said Vietnam was a non issue when it hurt Kerry … and a big, important issue when it might have hurt Bush. If this doesn’t trouble you, that, my friend, is your problem — not mine.
Bernie, right on! The guy missed the point completely.
Bernie, You made your point very articulately – I get it. Referring to me as “dense”, however, is beneath you. (One of my post-graduate degrees is from Harvard.) Can’t we disagree and still respect each other’s intellect?
You may not care if you and I ever agree on anything but I have a feeling that we agree on a lot more than you imagine. For starters, we share conservative values. I voted for Ronald Reagan and thought that he was the epitome as President. You may also be surprised to learn that I flew fighter cover for Israel during the Yom Kippur war.
I am not trying to change anyone’s values by posting my comments here. I’m just trying to make the case that we conservatives took the bait and bet on a phony to the extent that we believed that George W. Bush’s self-proclaimed “conversion” absolved him of all past sins and that God told him to run for the Presidency. All of the excuses in the world will never change the fact that Dubya did not fulfill his active duty military obligation during time of war as was required of most American boys. He opted out himself and then as armchair gun-slinger President sent others to do what he was unwilling to do himself. To my way of thinking, Bush’s hypocrisy, on a scale of one to ten, is off the charts. Mary Mapes and Dan Rather not including what amounts to a hearsay assertion in one of their stories rates a .05.
Bill White, Harvard owes you a refund and Canoe U owes the tax payers a refund.
Buddy — how on earth can you suggest such a thing when I was awarded an “honorable discharge” from both institutions of higher learning? According to you this should validate my higher intellect.
Billy Boy, you are the smartest, bravest man in the world. Why can’t these people see that?
Show them your combat medals from being the best fighter pilot in the history of warfare. Tell them about the 5 MIGs you shot down over Israel in the Yom Kippur War. And the Silver Star from Vietnam. Or at least the Vietnam Service ribbon which that dastardly George Bush never got.
And tell them about your great business career with that summa cum laude Harvard degree. Just leave out the part where you failed at real estate and then blamed a friend of George Bush and Bush himself. We know how nasty those Texas insiders are in stifling geniuses like you.
Give it to ‘em, Billy Boy. After your experience going Downtown along Thud Ridge, these wingnuts should be no problem for you.
Jeff, It’s sweet that you think that I’m “the smartest, bravest man in the world” but I know that I’m not, nor do I claim to be. I’m just a guy who loves his Country, did his stint on active duty like other committed patriots, and who abhors paper tiger “leaders” who play act at being heroes while they send others to do what they were afraid to do themselves. Bernie hit the nail on the head by calling it “Hypocrisy”. George W. Bush epitomizes this concept and we need to keep the focus of the discussion on his cowardly malfeasance — not shift the topic to who and what I am or am not (as you continually attempt to do). Please, no more compliments. You are making me blush.
Bill, as a graduate of ‘Canoe U’ you are not rowing with both oars in the water. The Iraq intelligence reports ( including weapons of mass destruction) were compiled during the Clinton administration. Clinton (Bill & Hill), Gore, Pelosi, Albright, Kerry, Edwards, Biden etc. etc. all believed the intelligence report that Bush used to take us into war was in fact correct. If anyone should be investigated it should be the Clinton administration for their incompetence.
Bill White said:
“George W. Bush, after cowardly using his Father’s political influence to avoid going to war for his Country himself”
HUH? Where is your head? Didn’t you read part one? Having served in the military for over a decade, I know about volunteering, even for something you don’t expect to ever get selected for. The rule is: never volunteer unless you really expect to get picked. Don’t even pretend to volunteering by counting on being disqualified for some reason. Mr. Goldberg’s first part states that Bush actually did volunteer to go to Vietnam and Mapes knew it. So if George W. Bush volunteered to go as a pilot to Viet Nam even though he was not “experienced enough,” he had to be prepared to accept the very real possibility that the Air Force might suddenly need a lot more pilots, and lower the level of experience required before being selected. That has happened in a number of wars. And when he calls his detailer, or his daddy calls his detailer’s boss, that officer’s going to say, “See? It says right here, I volunteer to go to Viet Nam, signed George W. Bush. We’re giving you what you want.” I don’t think his daddy, being a combat veteran himself, would have interfered.
The point of Mr. Goldberg’s column here is that it is a fact known for years to people like Rather, Mapes and CBS, and was definitely known to Mapes long enough before the story aired that hiding that fact is dishonest. And so is your assertion.
“…what damage was done?”
This damage:
“The men and women who served in Bush’s fabricated war…”
That’s the damage, right there. You said it yourself, right there.
Cheerleading for the insurgency, right there.
Every death in Iraq after the end of major combat operations had the kind of support you provided, right there.
Treason, right there.
No need to worry about your legacy if you “trust but verify” along the way. Makes me sad on many levels. A tangled web.