| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| A “Lost” Fact in the “Rathergate” Mess — Part 1 |
| 2009-08-28 |
| What seems like a long, long time ago Dan Rather was a very powerful force in American journalism. He not only was the anchorman of the CBS Evening News, he was also the face of the network's renowned news division -- the "Tiffany" network of bigger-than-life legends like Ed Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Mike Wallace and many, many others. That was then. Now Dan Rather is suing the network that employed him for 44 years, asking for $70 million dollars in damages. Technically, the lawsuit is about a dry legal issue -- breach of contract. But it is also about something much more personal to Rather: his legacy. It is a lawsuit, fundamentally, about saving Dan Rather's reputation. That reputation took a turn for the worse back in 2004. As has been widely reported, just 55 days before a very close presidential election, Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes put a story on the weekday edition of 60 Minutes that brought on the media equivalent of World War III. There were accusations that Rather, Mapes, and maybe the entire CBS News Division had set out to deliberately destroy George W. Bush and get John Kerry elected President of the United States -- a charge everyone at CBS vehemently denies. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #4 CyberSarge, Amen to that, and one other thing to keep in mind: Bush flew the F-102 Delta Dagger, which had a nightmarish safety record of 13.69 accidents per 1000 hrs flight time. To put that in perspective, the F-15 is only a 2.50. Out of 875 -102s built, 259 - 29.6% - were lost in accidents, killing 70 pilots and aircrew. You had a almost a 30% chance of not coming back every time you got in the airplane, and Bush had 336 hours in the beast, plus duty as an TANG -102 instructor. Whoops, sorry - doesn't fit the 'idiot' image so many wanted to portray of him. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-08-28 16:17 |
| #3 When I first read the “documents” my original thought it was someone who knew the lingo but had not really served. For example you used to get green and white “rips” notices for (Medical/Dental/Personnel) appointments, not an order from the commander. Turns out it was a delusional man, caught in a lie, and tried to pass it as truth. If Bush was such a screw-up there would have been dozens of people to come forward to confirm. I don’t care whose your daddy you aint flying a fighter before and unless you are qualified. Most people don’t like it when airplanes fall out of the sky due to a bad pilot. Do not take that point lightly, only the BEST get to fly fighters (ask John McCain or any other fighter pilot they are narcissists). |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2009-08-28 15:54 |
| #2 Facts be damned! It is all about The Narrative. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-08-28 14:18 |
| #1 Back when all this was in contention, I actually sat and read the report -- until I came to the page proving Bush volunteered for duty in Viet Nam. In very small print, at the end of the page, there was a box to check, indicating his willingness to go. I posted this finding on several message boards, except for some reason, on my computer's .pdf file, the finding was on P.136, not 130. Of course, CBS never got around to mentioning that particular page...wonder why. |
| Posted by: Clyde Huponter4344 2009-08-28 12:43 |