Mary Mapes off her meds.....again.

She and Rather are still desperate to justify their attempt to defraud the country.

 

wwjd...give Mary Mapes a voice in response to koolaid drinkers for bush.



My first thought when I read the NY Post's latest Page Six item on Dan Rather was that Dan must have missed a hush money payment or something. Reading on, I realized this was actually an opening publicity volley for a new book, one that is probably guaranteed a small but ready readership.
[Hardcore conservatives will rush to buy it since it apparently echoes their deeply held biases about Dan. CBS employees will buy it, as well, just to see who is mad at whom. Of course, that is not necessarily great news for the author since so few people are still working at CBS News.

I know. I used to be one of them.
For 16 years, I produced reports for the CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes II. I was the producer on Dan's team when we broke the story of prison abuse at Abu Ghraib, an investigative piece that won the Peabody last year. A few months earlier, I had been fired for my work on a report about George W. Bush's military record.
Page Six restates the conservative canard that our report "was found to be based on forged documents." That is just not true, no matter how many times Page Six or the Washington Times or some bitter conservative blogger repeats it.
The Bush National Guard story is a fascinating and terribly under-covered topic, full of Texas-style intrigue, privilege and political skullduggery. I mean, talk about selective service. At the height of the Vietnam War, the future president was able to select where he served, how he served and when he served. He even got to select his departure date.
When our story aired on September 8, 2004, it was savaged in an unprecedented outpouring of political vitriol. The Bush administration was then at the height of its ability to summon a terrifying whirlwind of criticism from right wing bloggers, hate talk radio yackers, FOX News "reporters," conservative columnists, and those hollering people whose heads always appear in little boxes on cable discussion shows. None of these critics cared anything about the facts of the story, only about their politics.
They claimed that CBS used forged documents and they repeated that lie so often that it stuck. The mainstream media picked it up, repeating bloggers' criticisms without making any serious effort to investigate the story. But then that would have required real legwork, something that very few were willing to do on this subject.
As for document analysis, it is a mind-numbing and arcane discipline, an imperfect undertaking reserved for courtroom use, not for headlines or Internet political battles. Document analysis is certainly not meant to be done at 11 o'clock at night by someone with no training or experience sitting in front of a glowing computer nursing a grudge and spoiling for a fight. But that's precisely how the right's attack against Dan Rather and CBS News was launched.
That first anonymous analyst (who turned out to be a Republican activist lawyer) raised questions about the memo using only a single shot of a faxed document digitally transmitted to his computer screen. Those kinds of transmissions radically change the way a document looks. His analysis was worthless.
The laundry list of problems that critics claimed they saw in the memos has turned out to be bunk. There never has been any definitive proof that they were forged or falsified in any way, despite a multi-million dollar investigation into the story by Viacom. The reasons we put them on the air remain valid: the content of the memos was corroborated by people familiar with Bush, his unit and his commander; the dates, times and details intricately matched what we know of the record; and two experienced and respected document analysts, who examined copies that had not been faxed or digitally recreated, concluded that the papers showed every indication of being real.
I don't believe we will know the truth about the memos until after the Bush team is out of office and people with information are no longer afraid to come forward.
Viacom, CBS's parent company, never did care whether the story was true or not. They just wanted rid of it. Among other things, they had multiple issues pending before the FCC and various other arms of the administration and our story was no help to the company in its quest to squeeze every last dime out of what used to be the public airwaves. Firing longtime employees in an attempt to get back into the administration's good graces was simply a business decision. It had nothing to do with journalism or the crucial role that critical reporting is supposed to play in American democracy.
The whole incident also opened the floodgates on criticism of Dan Rather, inside and outside of CBS.
In this upcoming book, Morley Safer recounts a 40-year-old anecdote in which Dan reportedly told a group of Marines that Morley "should have been shot dead" for his controversial reporting on the burning of a Vietnamese village. I have no idea if the story is true, but it doesn't sound right to me. Of course, I have no real insight because I was in grade school at the time. What amazes me is that apparently Morley doesn't know whether it is true, either. He says he has never talked to Dan about it. But he has been steaming over this since the days when women wore go-go boots. Still, he describes his relationship with Dan as "polite". Apparently this kind of public sniping is what passes for "polite" in certain corners at CBS News.
This is what I know. There are decades-long blood feuds still going strong there, ancient hatreds triggered by big egos, big salaries and sometimes, big emotional problems. 60 Minutes Sunday is not only an important news broadcast, it is also something of a comedic cross between a retirement home and a small town high school cheerleading squad. There is a lot of hair tossing and skirt flipping, along with brutal competition and vicious gossiping. The squad members are self-absorbed and self-obsessed. When one girl falls or trips, the others snicker with delight. There have been resentments left simmering for so long in the CBS News offices that they have become part of the furniture.
Frankly, I loved working there. It was entertaining as hell. But I don't miss it.
My own theory about why Dan seems to drive some of his colleagues so crazy is pretty mundane. I think he is a hard-working, ambitious, driven individual who committed the great sin of reaching the peak of his profession. Dan wielded his influence and made decisions in ways that some didn't like, but then that happens in every workplace in America. Only at CBS do high profile employees turn up constantly in public openly attacking someone who has for years had the grace to keep from answering in kind. You never see this kind of internal fighting explode at ABC or NBC or even FOX. It's a shame that no one in leadership at CBS has ever had the guts to tell these guys to grow up and shut up.
Sadly, CBS has a tribal ritual of making a rough transition from one anchor to another.
Rough, that is, on the anchor being replaced. Even old Uncle Walter was "disappeared" for years after leaving the anchor chair. At least he didn't have to dodge spears as he left the village.
The political types who have treated Dan Rather as their own personal voodoo doll for decades are just as bad. To them, Dan is the personification of big media and they resent everything from his coverage of the civil rights movement to his work on Watergate. They still seethe about his attempt to get then-Vice President George H.W. Bush to answer a question during a live interview that dissolved into a shouting match in the late 1980s. To me, that was a fascinating face-off between a hardnosed reporter and an evasive politician. To his political enemies, the confrontation was further proof that Dan was a Communist. Good grief, he's from Texas.
For what it is worth, here is my take on Dan Rather, after years of dragging our tired selves through hurricanes, war zones, prisons and political battles.
I have never seen Dan Rather behave in a cruel way. I have never heard him trash a fellow reporter at CBS in anything approaching the way he has been talked about publicly. I have seen him work his butt off in terrible conditions, stay up all night to get the facts right, and help younger, greener reporters struggling with tough stories. I have seen him give away his coat in freezing weather to someone whose teeth were chattering. He is a good guy and a great reporter, simply one of the best, as tireless and true blue as this country has ever seen.
To me and to many, many others at CBS News who have worked with him over the years, Dan Rather is a kind and honorable man. We are not the Morley Safers, Don Hewitts, or Mike Wallaces. We are just a bunch of producers and cameramen, associate producers and editors, researchers and soundmen, lighting directors and makeup people who worked with Dan rather than competing against him. Frankly, I would hate to compete with him. He's tough.
CBS News is filled with wonderful and talented people who take their jobs rather than themselves seriously. Then there is this handful of boldface names quoted repeatedly in tabloids, always taking a swipe at someone. It is sad.
A quote many at CBS News attribute to Charles Osgood sums up the sometimes brutal atmosphere in the news division. Years ago, he supposedly described the tension there by saying that "things have gotten so bad, people are stabbing each other in the chests".
Reading the New York Post's snarky item from this new book, all I could think of was how little things have changed. Good luck, Katie.

 

Turns out that the final word came from the secretary who typed the memos. She said that although the papers she saw were not the ones she typed, the "information on them is accurate."

Turns out Rather had been given copies of the origionals, but the information was correct.

It is a little window into the character and personality of the current WH occupant.

 

Just one more example that for Bush haters a lie isn't a lie or a bad thing if it hurts Bush.

If he was given copies of the originals then why didn't he produce the originals? Why was there a fabrication presented as the originals?

Again, Bush haters really don't care if things a contrived. All that matters it that they not be caught in it and that it hurts Bush.

Nope. A little window into the character and personalities of people so driven by hatred that even lying to hurt that person isn't considered out of bounds.

 

It wasn't a lie, of course. The information in the Rather papers was confirmed by the lady who typed the originals.

"But the most decisive evidence came on Sept. 15, when The Dallas Morning News published an interview with Killian's secretary, Marian Carr Knox, who said she did not type the memos, although she typed similar ones for her boss.
"These are not real," she told the newspaper. "They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him."
But she said the content was accurate. "I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_ethics/casestudy_cbs.php

"WASHINGTON — The former secretary to a Texas Air National Guard officer who purportedly wrote memos critical of President Bush's pilot service said Tuesday that the documents are forgeries but they appear to reflect memos her boss wrote and kept in a locked desk drawer.
Marian Carr Knox told the Dallas Morning News after viewing copies of the disputed memos, "These are not real," and that "the information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-14-memos-forgeries_x.htm

No one comes off very well in this one. Shame on Rather for a very shoddy job of fact-checking. And shame on Bush for failing to serve honorably and for trying to use Daddy's influence to stay out of the brig.

Apparently, even eyewitness testimony will not shake the faith of the few remaining Bush supporters.

BTW, lying to defend a person is equally out of bounds. At least they both seem wrong to me. Do you agree?

 

Gee... what happened to everyone...:laugh:

 

The the "enormity" was the secretary's testimony that the facts on them were accurate. She was actually the one who typed the memos. Her statement is the most "real" of evidence; she was actually there. She typed the memos, and knows what she typed on them.

She had no foggy memory; she clearly recalled all of it. You're not pleased that it happened that way. But denying the evidence isn't going to help.

Bush failed to serve honorably, and then used daddy's influence to get out of trouble.

The orders busting him from flying status for failure to report, as well as his supervisor's report that he had not been seen for at least a year, back up what the lady says.

Rather still messed up. But it doesn't change what happened. It is a fact, as Bush's behavior in the WH has shown us. He's finally reached a level where Daddy can't help him anymore.

 

The eyewitness testimony. The lady who actually typed the memos verified that the copies Rather was given were accurate.

She is the final authority, since she typed them. She verified the information in Rather's notes.

You'd have to be really hard core Bush to deny that kind of evidence.

 

Try that in court: "I wasn't speeding, your honor, Mary Jane, who was riding with me, says so!"

Here's someone who served with W who paints a completely different picture:

I Served With George W. Bush

Oh, here's a copy of his honorable discharge: W's Honorable Discharge

(I still wonder why Kerry would never release all of his records, if they are so honorable, and I also wonder why so many people give Clinton a free pass for dodging the draft, yet these same people whine and cry about Bush's honorable service for which all records were released.)

 

He didn't exactly serve with Bush, just at the same time.

I read his article on Kerry as well - the man is clearly partisan and not informed. He put Kerry with Jane Fonda and said he mocked the veterans which, if you read his speeches and watch the hearings, is outright false.

Not tremendously credible.

 

They didn't forge any documents. What they did was not thoroughly investigate, or they would have found out their sources were forged. Certainly poor journalism, but not a capital offense.

 

Yes, eyewitness testimony is indeed considered evidence in court. What you presented was hearsay, which is not permitted.

Generally, the testimony of someone who was actually there, and had a detailed understanding of the matter, trumps anyone's opinion.

Why not just admit that Bush behaved deplorably, and that it was part of that flawed character he claims to have repaired? Denial seems to be rather pointless, given the evidence.

 

On Kerry's bravery in Vietnam, and Bush's AWOL:

It probably wasn't a great idea to start the thread, if you were trying to justify Bush's behavior.