If the public cannot count on CBS and Dan Rather...

[Tommy Duncan]

...to accurately report the news without a "fake" component and relying on questionable and highly partisan sources then why should we trust them on their reporting of the situation in Iraq?

Just a thought for the next time someone wants to pull up the daily NY Times "it's all going to hell" article.

[Yonivore]

And, it begins to unravel (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/front/2799919)

Texan has a history of attacks on Bush
Possible CBS source has had his credibility questioned before
Uh oh, Dan! Think he can hold them off ‘til November 2?

[Yonivore]

Tee hee hee


Working Kinko’s (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7128)

Dan Rather says the "thrust" of his forgery is true, but assures Americans that once he gets to the bottom of his forgeries he will authenticate the inauthenticity of them. "I'd like to break that story," he says -- a statement so beyond parody it almost gives off a whiff of senility. Meanwhile, Rather's elite friends politely avert their gaze, treating Rather like a doddering guest...
Priceless!

[Yonivore]

CBS 'stonewalling' raises doubts on role in debates (http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040917-120800-6481r)

See what you’ve done Dan?
I’m bettin’ the bosses aren’t too happy with you.

“Some Republicans, angered by what they call ‘stonewalling’ by CBS anchor Dan Rather of documents relating to President Bush's National Guard record, are objecting to the participation of CBS in the presidential debates between Mr. Bush and John Kerry.”
Ooops!

[Yonivore]

60 Minutes of Fame (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005636
)

If Dan Rather's source turns out to be a partisan, say goodbye to CBS's reputation.

Excerpts:

“On Feb. 12, 1996, I picked up a phone at CBS News in New York and called Dan Rather, who was in Des Moines covering the Iowa caucuses. It was a call that I--then a CBS correspondent--wasn't anxious to make. I'd written an op-ed for this page about liberal bias in the news that was going to run the next day. I knew I had to give Dan a heads up. ‘I wrote a piece for the Journal, Dan, and my guess is you won't be ecstatic about it.’ I hadn't given him any details yet, so he had no idea what the op-ed was about. Dan was gracious; he always was when we spoke. ‘Bernie,’ he said, ‘we were friends yesterday, we're friends today, and we'll be friends tomorrow. So tell me about it.’”

“I did, and the more I told him the more tense the conversation got. After listening for a while, Dan told me, ‘I'm getting viscerally angry about this’ and the call soon ended. And then the man who was my friend yesterday, today, and tomorrow told a number of our colleagues that he'd ‘never’ forgive me for what I'd done.”

More:

“As if that weren't bad enough, it was becoming apparent that by writing about bias, which Mr. Rather over the years had repeatedly said was a phony issue, I had (at least in his mind) also called into question the thing he holds most sacred--his integrity. That wasn't my intent. I was just writing about bias in the news, not about Dan Rather. But if Dan thinks his reputation has been attacked, understandably, he gets hotter than an armadillo at a Fourth of July picnic, as you know who might put it.”

Ending:

“Now it's possible that the mystery man (or woman) is someone who lives in Denmark or Tibet and somehow got his hands on genuine documents that make the president look bad in the middle of a race that might turn out to be tighter than the rusted lug nuts on a '54 Chevy. But I doubt it. I'm betting he lives a lot closer to home, and, who knows, he might indeed turn out to be a ‘partisan political force’ himself. And this is precisely Dan's problem. This is why, I suspect, he isn't coming clean, despite the damage to his reputation. Because Dan Rather may be protecting not just his source, but himself; because, if the source turns out to be a partisan, then Dan wasn't just taken for a ride, but may have been a willing passenger.”

“And then Dan, and CBS News, can kiss their reputations goodbye.”

[Joe Chalupa]

:sleep Rather was taken. End of Story.

[Yonivore]

I think not, there's more to this story.

Was he "taken" as you say, or was he complicit?

This smells worse than a flattened skunk on a county dirt road.

Ratherisms abound.

[LandSharkII]

:sleep Rather was taken. End of Story.
Correction: Rather allowed himself to be taken. He wanted to believe the forged documents.

[Joe Chalupa]

Well, Bill allowed himself to be taken...he wanted to believe in that BJ!!

[LandSharkII]

:rollin