« "Whenever It Is Convenient for You" | Main | They Really DO Want Monica to Do FISA Applications! »

September 20, 2007


Hi, EW. Bear of little brain, here.
So, we all knew the story was true, even though the MSM (whom I prefer to call the Traditional Media--cause it sounds all stultified, and such) and 'certain' investigators brought 'evidence' that it was untrue. So, why is Rather only now digging in his heels? Why didn't he protest at the whitewash way back then? Was he being threatened? That seems to me to be the only reason he'd cave without a peep? What gives?

i read kurtz's column in the post.

it was full of the usual

"howard kurtz promotes and protects howard kurtz's interests while pretending to report media news"


"wades deep into the weeds" does NOT mean kurtz does not understand.

it means kurtz is trying, as is his wont ("i adore powerful people"),

to cast doubt on rather's story.

surprisingly(?), there is nothing in kurtz's column that suggests a fellow reporter (albeit a teevee reporter) was treated badly by his management (CBS).

rather, there is lots of innuendo suggesting that some doddering old fart named rather has been fool enough to not let sleeping dogs lie.

typical howie?

no guts,

no brains,

no heart.

and an IQ lower than master bush's.

stupid is good for the wapoop bottom line*.

*(see also Cohen, Richard).

Heyward and Moonves are going to regret making the boot call the day after Bush's reelection. Ouch. It is not dispositive of anything in and of itself, but that is a symbol you can hang your hat on and weave your argument around. Trial lawyers love little hooks like that.

Dan's working for Mark Cuban now, right?

Slothrop - Yep. This from an earlier thread comment I made, " Rather is going to have the full backing of Mark Cuban to do this too. This suit will generate tons of publicity, will poke sticks in the eyes of the broadcast networks, and will be a thorn in the side of the Bushs. All very good things for Mark Cuban."

After watching the GWB performance this morning with the sound off on TV, and then reading some of the reporting on this topic, I entertained myself with the real possibility that come January 21, 2009, Rather just might want to take the deposition of the subject of this little matter -- the guy who apparently went AWOL. Don't know NY law on this, but anyone??? What is the statute of limitations on this kind of case in NY? Broadcast was in October, 2004 -- the word "your fired" November 2004. Could it be that SoL might help understand the timing of Rather's suit? Is it three years? That is fairly normal.

Could be that This is Rather's greatest story -- how the White House controlled the content of CBS News (and other news.) If as some of us believe, Rove may have been involved in putting the documents into CBS's possession -- and then flipped on Rather with the claim they were fake -- Well, Rove is now free to give a deposition, as is Bartlett. Managing the content of 60 minutes is not exactly a constitutionally protected function of the Executive Office of the President. Goodness we may even find out whether or not Powerline had any direct communications with the EOP about early 1970's IBM Typewriter typefaces.

I think Rather is completely in control of his ego needs, and that this decision to sue is a matter of a Reporter's tradecraft.

Sara, I think you are quite right. I can assure you Rather is within the SOL. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal is a first rate firm, and Martin Gold a superb lawyer. What we got here is a great reporter with a chip on his shoulder and subpoena power. I think this is going to be a lot of fun to watch. Hope CBS has something left in the liability reserve after the Imus settlement. By the way, far as I can tell, they can subpoena and depose Bush and Cheney any time they want pursuant to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997); Dan doesn't need to wait until they leave office. "Who could have predicted" that the blowhard Republicans would rue the day they forced Bill Clinton to submit to a deposition in the ginned up fraudulent Paula Jones case? Heh heh.

Oh, and Sara, another present for you.... A key issue in the suit will be the authenticity of the documents. What better fact witness to depose and examine on the authenticity, and veracity of information contained therein, of a person's military records than the person himself Under oath. And penalty of perjury. Can't claim National security. Can't claim he is too busy, when he spends most of his time on vacation, working out, sleeping and bicycling. Oh my!

bmaz, I luv you!

I've been unplugged from reality for a while, so I don't really get this story.

we care why, exactly ???

dan rather got fired about the same time he intended to retire, bfd

is the fact that repuglicans control cbs news some kind of new revelation ???

and isn't danny boy the HACK who misrepresented the content of the Zappruder film 40 years ago ??? he's been sold out for as long as I can remember. so why should we care if he's got his pubes in a knot over his dismissal

rather is a sold out hack who got rat fucked by kkkal rove. that's how the game is played, and dan knows that

that's what I call Karma, not news

we're liberals, so I know we're about "doing un to the least of our brethern" and all that, but does that really have to include the hacktackular dan rather ???

hell, I ain't even positive that he's human to begin with

correct me if I'm wrong here, but when two teams that I hate play each other (texas and nebraska, I'm talkin bout U) I root for lots of injuries, on both sides

so unless rather and rover plan to bring each other down together, do I really have a dog in this fight ???

the typos are so texas and nebraska grads can read it too

(ducking and running)

I wonder if Buckhead is someone he wants to put under oath.

And for those who didn't click through to the second Kurtz story, Rather implies he, unlike Howard Stern, is not doing this for the money--he's willing to bankroll to get subpoena power.

Bring it on!! It can't hurt the public to see what happens during this suit. It's all good.

What we got here is a great reporter with a chip on his shoulder and subpoena power.

..far as I can tell, they can subpoena and depose Bush and Cheney any time they want pursuant to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)...

"Who could have predicted" that the blowhard Republicans would rue the day they forced Bill Clinton to submit to a deposition in the ginned up fraudulent Paula Jones case? Heh heh.

Posted by: bmaz | September 21, 2007 at 00:45


All Rather wants is subpoena power and deposition power.
For Rather and his mountain-sized ego, the ultimate insult was to have been brought down by Karl Rove and his minions. He will spend whatever money it takes to put Karl under oath and his corporate enemies Moonves and Heyward. if he can Bush under oath, even better. Whatever money he spends on his lawyers, even if he doesn't win a cent of the $70M lawsuit, those deposition tapes (civil depositions can be videotaped and they will be property of Rather's) would be worth lot of money. And Rather will broadcast those tapes on Cuban's network, whose ratings will go through the roof.

Cuban may already be in the deal now, bankrolling Rather's lawsuit.
Win for both of them - and for us.

I have no trouble believing Moonves was carrying water for Rove and his thugs. Little Les's first job in Hollywood (after he gave up being an actor/bartender) was carrying water for the executives at Lorimar, a now-defunct (bought by Warner Bros.) company widely rumored to have been mob-financed.

bmaz has the key point, i think.

file the suit, issue subpoenas, get depositions, transcribe depositions, make them available for all to see. rather wants the facts of corporate manipulation of reporters, as well as news, out there.

how to test hypothesis:

well, for one, if rather settles, H is wrong.

if, instead of offering to settle, cbs attacks the basis of the suit - timing,, standing to sue, etc, - then H is probably correct.

if cbs asks for sealed records, H is probably correct.

And one more point about Rather trying to bring to the public.

Why else include the Abu Ghraib bit, without the allegation that the TANG takedown was part of revenge for the Abu Ghraib?

And here's something I've been contemplating. What if Rigler didn't authenticate the documents, but rather discover their source?

this is going to be a fun fight to watch.

i can't wait to read the transcripts.

civil suits - easier than impeachment and at least as informative.

but speaking of waiting, it may require 5 years of lawyering.

hope "they" put matters on speed dial and old dan hangs around.

For those who missed it in the last Rather thread, let me once again point to evidence that the typeface on the TANG memo is exactly the same as that found on other documents relating to Bush's National Guard service. In other words, the famous talking point about Rather being too foolish to notice that his memo was created on a modern wordprocessor with a Times-Roman font is false. See:


and especially note "Documents Released on September 24, 2004" under "other documents". The memo on page 6 of that pdf uses a proportional font identical to the Rather memo.

If only Viget were around, maybe one could even show that the TANG memo is closer to this FOI memo than it is to Times-Roman.

I might not care much for Dan Rather, but if he carries through with this it is a real public service and we will all have to offer him our gratitude.

if he carries through with this it is a real public service and we will all have to offer him our gratitude.

I guess I have to agree with MarkH

can I get some "gratitude" in an extra-small cup, to go please"

freep - I have mixed emotions about Rather. He really was one hell of a reporter; but I didn't like him that much as an anchor. Irrespective of any of that though, he is a tough and old school hard headed. Right now, that is a very good thing. He isn't going off half cocked; they have really worked this up before filing the complaint. I don't know where he will end up when it is over, but he is going to make some serious assholes very uncomfortable in the process. Could not happen to more worthy pricks; for that, I am thinking very kindly of Dan Rather right about now.

Very late to the party. Reading here and Firedoglake comments. My 2 cents is that Rather is from Texas and knows about how the other Texan of the piece made him leave Dodge against his will. (Yeah, Dodge wasn't in Texas, but go with the flow, ok?). Rather is going to go out of his way to make everybody he can uncomfortable with the truth as he knows it. I never liked his style of anchor-delivery (faux Texas-Florid), but he has always been a reporter first and foremost. It has been the source of his honor since Nixon if not before. He is not going down quietly. He has no intention of fading to black.

"and especially note "Documents Released on September 24, 2004" under "other documents". The memo on page 6 of that pdf uses a proportional font identical to the Rather memo."

This is false. The importance of "page 6" is that it is proportionately spaced documents from TexANG created in 1971-- essentially destroying the various claims that TexANG didn't have the "advanced technology" needed to create a proportionately spaced document. But "page 6" is clearly a different font from the "Killian memos", with can be easily determined when you compare the upper case "J" found on "page six" ( http://www.glcq.com/docs/(71-02-19) )recognition_memo.pdf with the same letter found on the Killian memos. ( http://www.glcq.com/stuff/killian_memos/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf )

p_lukasiak - thanks for that clarification. What is your opinion of the alleged conclusion by this investigator Rigler that the documents were indeed genuine?


my guess is that Riglar reported that he found nothing that suggested that the documents were fake -- and that he was able to verify key facts related to either Burketts story, or based on the memos themselves.

But the only way to be absolutely sure the documents are genuine would be to have the originals -- and if Riglar had the originals, they would have been released by now.

There is, of course, another possibility -- that Riglar has established the provenance of the documents, and traced them back to Killian's family....but is contracturally/ethically enjoined from saying anything publicly, and Rather's suit provides the necessary legal framework/supoena power that would make it possible for Riglar to tell what he knows.

p.luk - Thanks. This is going to be interesting. Say what you will about Rather, he can be dogged and he does have skills and a chip on his shoulder. And really good lawyers.

Can Rather and his lawyers subpoena communications between the White House (with the RNC) and that lawyer who first posted on Free Republic that the documents were inauthentic?

lysias - Yes.

Way late to this party but... don't I remember an incident in the early 80's or maybe even late 70's in which Rather is found dazed and confused, wandering the streets of New York in a paranoid fugue? I vaguely remember a story of rain and a dark doorway...

P. Luk., Thanks for the correction. I had been pointed to those documents a long time ago and I guess I forgot that it was a different font. The proportional spacing is still pretty important given that most people dismiss the Killian memo on those grounds. The timing of the release of those documents is also kind of suspicious. I sure hope Rather gets the story clarified with his case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad