Writes WaPo: Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect. Of course, it depends on what the word “concedes” means–based on the 60 Minutes II story last night, Rather’s position is akin to “conceding” there might be life on Titan and he would love to report on the story if evidence can be produced:
“If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story,” Rather said in an interview last night. “Any time I’m wrong, I want to be right out front and say, ‘Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.’ “
Given that Fox, MSNBC, the LAT and WaPo at a minimum have largely decalred the docs fake, and every other news source I have read/seen have expressed severe doubts just shy of saying that they are forgeries, I am baffled by Rather’s position.
And I love the subtitle of the WaPo story:
CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service
No doubt: as oppossed to looking into the authenticity of the documents and as to their source–not to mention how Rather and CBS news allowed themselves to be duped.
And I hate to tell Dan, but this simply isn’t the case:
“This is not about me,” Rather said before anchoring last night’s newscast. “I recognize that those who didn’t want the information out and tried to discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept that.”
If the story is that Bush probably got special treatment, I don’t think that that is huge news. The only thing Rather can hang his hat on as new is that one of the memos purports to have evidence of Bush defying a direct order (and this is why he is clinging to the docs with a death grip), but as I noted yesterday, the memo and the information in it, appear not to conform to known ANG protocol. And since it is demonstrably obvious that the document is a fake, Rather is making himself the story by acting as if they are real.
September 17th, 2004 at 6:18 pm
RIGHT ON! Roundup
Blogroll acting fishy? Ivan got you down? Kerry boring you into surrender? Kerning and Kinko’s got you reeling? How about a Thank God It’s Friday “RIGHT ON!” roundup?
September 17th, 2004 at 8:56 pm
“Boring us into surrender” is exactly what we need, I believe. Bush’s shoot-first-ask-questions-never foreign policy may be entertaining, but it’s sort of the Kurt Cobain/Chris Farley/Marilyn Monroe kind of entertaining. You have to wonder what happens when time’s up.
As for Dan Rather, I’m both impressed and a little disenchanted that what I believe is a non-issue has gotten so much coverage when there is SO MUCH to talk about. Our national dialog worries me. And I don’t think it helps that even the president himself doesn’t seem to grasp the real issues. He’s a nice guy, and a good Christian. (Although personally I think he’s a bit too close to the Christian Coalition, which is one step away from madness. All I can say for Pat Robertson is that his past predictions from God about presidential winners have all fallen through, so when he says God predicts Bush to win in a landslide, it gives me hope that perhaps the country is coming to its senses and preparing to vote for Ker — OK, vote against Bush). In 2000, there was a lot to like about Bush, but I always wondered about his credentials to run the country. A lot of people talk about his character and how much they trust his faith, etc. But I could tour around the country tomorrow and come up with probably 50 million people of high character, with faith, and I wouldn’t even think about voting for 49.9 million of them for president.
Anyway, the issue really ISN’T Dan Rather. Who cares about Dan Rather? The future of the country really doesn’t rest in Dan Rather’s hands.
The issue is really George Bush. Ideally not his National Guard record, although I would personally be 110% shocked if Bush got into the Guard solely on his own merits and then fulfilled all of his duties. Every reasonable scrap of evidence I’ve seen suggests otherwise on both counts. With or without those memos.
What I truly hope is that we start discussing the real issues. Not “faith” or how nice a guy he is, or how adorable he looks in a cowboy hat. But the REAL substance. How has he lived up to his promises? Is he as dynamic, knowledgable, and capable a president as we deserve to have in office? Is his economic policy even remotely sensible? Or his fiscal policy? Do we really need to throw out 225 years of foreign policy doctrine that has served us pretty well? You know, all empires do fall eventually. Do we really want this one to fall in our own lifetimes? Or even risk it? As the first comment above suggests, Bush is NOT boring. His wife says “he likes action.”
But we need to make sure that guy is more than just entertaining. We need to make sure that with our country in his hands, he’s not going to flush away our hopes and dreams because he lacks a thorough understanding of the world.
bin Laden preferred terminology: infidels
Bush preferred terminology: evildoers
God save us. Seriously.