Say goodnite Dan (Rather)

(but why make us wait?, and worse...)

from JoeUser Forums
DrudgeReport.com is linking an article from ABC News that indicates that Dan Rather is out as anchor of CBS Night News as of March of 2005.

Unfortunately (from my perspective) that gives him about 4 more months of potentially tainted news reports and obvious anti-Bush bias to try to put out more bad news about the Bush administration. Thankfully there will not be an election during that time frame.

Meanwhile, on the worse side of it, it seems that he will not be stepping away from reporting for 60 Minutes II (or 60 Minutes, Wednesday or whatever day they run it on). Since that's where his problems with the obvious Bush bashing started, I still don't see this as an adequate response to the botched story that used the fradulent -- ooops, lets use Rather's favored wording: un-supportable -- and discredited documents.
politics
7,805 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

he'll be 74 in 2005.  despite the documents problem last summer, he's lasted a hell of a lot longer than most of the presidents he reported on.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: kingbeePosted: Tuesday, November 23, 2004he'll be 74 in 2005. despite the documents problem last summer, he's lasted a hell of a lot longer than most of the presidents he reported on.


Longetivy does not necessarily equate to quality.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like how when it is fraud and slander against a conservative, it is "A document problem". But boy how they howled like a stuck pig when the swift Vets dared to state their opinion!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like how when it is fraud and slander against a conservative, it is "A document problem". But boy how they howled like a stuck pig when the swift Vets dared to state their opinion!


I know what you mean. Meanwhile, if one quotes Fox News, they're quickly disregarded, but quoting from the New York Times or CBS about something that casts Bush in a bad light? Divine truth! They're just a bunch of hypocrites.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, why is it OK that Bush sent this country to war un unsubstantiated claims of WMD, based on the fraudulent Niger documents, and thousands upon thousands of people died and were maimed, and Rather screws up on one story and he's Satan incarnate? Double friggin' standards......................
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: dabePosted: Tuesday, November 23, 2004So, why is it OK that Bush sent this country to war un unsubstantiated claims of WMD, based on the fraudulent Niger documents, and thousands upon thousands of people died and were maimed, and Rather screws up on one story and he's Satan incarnate? Double friggin' standards......................


First, Rather hasn't screwed up just one story, it's been several, with a history of "going after" both G.W. Bush and G.H.W. Bush, as well as other "conservatives". It's just part of a long line.

Second, based on "flawed intelligent data" would be correct. Fraudulent Niger documents may be an inaccurate term.

Finally, even if you would have preferred to see Saddam left alone, he was clearly funding terrorist activities -- with payments to families of suicide bombers for example -- and further, he's well known as one of the absolutely worst offenders in the civil rights arena. Worse than him, his sons were completely evil. Having control of that country fall to either of them would have been horrible for that nation and the world in general. Saddam clearly gamed the system and tried to keep his programs going. But of course, that is irrelevant to your argument and doesn't matter, so I can just stop here....
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

I like how when it is fraud and slander against a conservative, it is "A document problem". But boy how they howled like a stuck pig when the swift Vets dared to state their opinion


i was using shorthand to refer to the incident.  clearly rather and his producer bought into a story that should have been investigated more thoroughly.  it hardly qualifies as fraud or slander.  it was an error of judgement and fact.  i dont know if you saw the nightline expedition to the location in vietnam where the actual battle in which kerry ordered his boat beached occured.  there were two living witnesses whose corroboration supported the reports on which kerry's medals were awarded. john oneil was given ample opportunity to explain his position.  he literally melted down on camera.  swiftboat vets were just the most recent bright and shining lie of the vietnam war.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #5 By: dabe - 11/23/2004 10:03:34 PM
So, why is it OK that Bush sent this country to war un unsubstantiated claims of WMD, based on the fraudulent Niger documents, and thousands upon thousands of people died and were maimed, and Rather screws up on one story and he's Satan incarnate? Double friggin' standards......................


Get a grip dude. No one knew they were fraudulent until *after* the fact.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #7 By: kingbee - 11/24/2004 12:08:49 AM
I like how when it is fraud and slander against a conservative, it is "A document problem". But boy how they howled like a stuck pig when the swift Vets dared to state their opinion



i was using shorthand to refer to the incident. clearly rather and his producer bought into a story that should have been investigated more thoroughly. it hardly qualifies as fraud or slander. it was an error of judgement and fact. i dont know if you saw the nightline expedition to the location in vietnam where the actual battle in which kerry ordered his boat beached occured. there were two living witnesses whose corroboration supported the reports on which kerry's medals were awarded. john oneil was given ample opportunity to explain his position. he literally melted down on camera. swiftboat vets were just the most recent bright and shining lie of the vietnam war.


So your saying that the *gunner* from Kerry's boat was a liar?
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top

Reply #7 By: Citizen kingbee - 11/24/2004 12:08:49 AM
I like how when it is fraud and slander against a conservative, it is "A document problem". But boy how they howled like a stuck pig when the swift Vets dared to state their opinion



i was using shorthand to refer to the incident. clearly rather and his producer bought into a story that should have been investigated more thoroughly. it hardly qualifies as fraud or slander. it was an error of judgement and fact. i dont know if you saw the nightline expedition to the location in vietnam where the actual battle in which kerry ordered his boat beached occured. there were two living witnesses whose corroboration supported the reports on which kerry's medals were awarded. john oneil was given ample opportunity to explain his position. he literally melted down on camera. swiftboat vets were just the most recent bright and shining lie of the vietnam war.


You do know the AAR for this event written by Kerry from the Navy records has leaked out right (something Kerry refused to allow released by not signing the SF 180)? In the AAR (which nightline failed to sight) the events given by these two living witnesses and Kerry's latest story don't match. In fact the AAR is by far much closer to the nine eye witnesses in Kerry's squadron that contributed to the Swift Boat vets account. Strange how nightline refused to interview those nine sailors, but will interview people who live in a totalitarian country that honors Kerry.

So before you start calling the Swift boat vets all liars read the book and do your research. Here is the Link to the AAR, for your reading plesure.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

the events given by these two living witnesses and Kerry's latest story don't match.


as i recall the only difference between the the kerry version--which i seem to remember koppel quoting--and the vietnamese survivors' remembrances was the way the guy who popped outa the spiderhole was dressed and the fact he was no skinny lil kid.   if you saw the piece you saw o'neil unable/unwilling to do anything to provide a cogent response for what had to have been at least 7 minutes before koppel dismissed him as irrelevant.  considering he's made a 30+ year career of trying to prove kerry was lying,  one might have expected him to offer something more than who wrote which sentence in which book about kerry.  in fact, provided with the perfect opportunity and a national audience, o'neil showed himself to be a poor player, That struts and frets upon the stage, And then is heard no more.and his allegations to be a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  

 

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Get a grip dude. No one knew they were fraudulent until *after* the fact.


You, get a grip, dud. I knew. It was all over the internet. And, if I knew, and it was all over the internet, you can be damned sure they also knew "before" the fact.
Bush lied. People died
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #12 By: dabe - 11/24/2004 6:41:01 AM
Get a grip dude. No one knew they were fraudulent until *after* the fact.


You, get a grip, dud. I knew. It was all over the internet. And, if I knew, and it was all over the internet, you can be damned sure they also knew "before" the fact.
Bush lied. People died


Nice to know you still remember the liberal / Democratic rhyming talking points.

Thanks for attempting to waste our time.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: kingbee - 11/24/2004 4:18:49 AM
the events given by these two living witnesses and Kerry's latest story don't match.



as i recall the only difference between the the kerry version--which i seem to remember koppel quoting--and the vietnamese survivors' remembrances was the way the guy who popped outa the spiderhole was dressed and the fact he was no skinny lil kid. if you saw the piece you saw o'neil unable/unwilling to do anything to provide a cogent response for what had to have been at least 7 minutes before koppel dismissed him as irrelevant. considering he's made a 30+ year career of trying to prove kerry was lying, one might have expected him to offer something more than who wrote which sentence in which book about kerry. in fact, provided with the perfect opportunity and a national audience, o'neil showed himself to be a poor player, That struts and frets upon the stage, And then is heard no more.and his allegations to be a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


I'll ask the question again. "So your saying that the *gunner* from Kerry's boat was a liar"?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Back to the point. I suspect they announced it now so that they didn't have to explain why he was stepping down after the "documents" investigation was complete. They don't want it to look like the Bush NG documents fiasco did him in. There had already been discussions early this year about his departure - driven more by the nosedive in the ratings for CBS Evening News than anything else.

Interesting how long that documents investigation is taking, isn't it? Wonder if it will ever see the light of day.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'll ask the question again. "So your saying that the *gunner* from Kerry's boat was a liar"?


Yes. Either that, or Senator Kerry was.  Now, one could say, who would have the most to gain from lying?  Kerry would gain some prestige by saying, "Hey, look at me, I'm a decorated war hero." and we could leave it at that.  Or, one could look at the Gunner's testimony about the event.  Testimony which doesn't match accounts from the time.  Also, why did he wait so long to come out about it?  If he had been so "outraged" about Kerry for so long, shouldn't he have said something before the election season?


Cheers

Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes. Either that, or Senator Kerry was. Now, one could say, who would have the most to gain from lying? Kerry would gain some prestige by saying, "Hey, look at me, I'm a decorated war hero." and we could leave it at that. Or, one could look at the Gunner's testimony about the event.


I would have to say Senator Kerry is the one changing the truth. Remember X-mas in Cambodia, receiving his first purple heart during the week he brags in his diary that he and his crew had not seen any enemy or action, and three other incidents that match the Swift boat accounts, but not Kerry's. All this has been debated repeatedly on this site. It is hard to discount more with Kerry's refusal to release the AARs and his diaries. But he keeps refusing to clear his name, Why?

Also, why did he wait so long to come out about it? If he had been so "outraged" about Kerry for so long, shouldn't he have said something before the election season?


O’Neil brought this up years ago and gets blasted for having an axe to grind. Because of this he gets discounted as a kook. Maybe the gunner just didn't want to get smeared as O’Neil had. It takes gonads to stand up and get attacked by Kerry's lawyers and character assassins. I applaud the man and other remembers of Kerry's squadron for standing up against all the mud slinging.

I have serviced with Dirt bags in my career, but I would not have said anything until the man's life would effect my life too (like an election).

if you saw the piece you saw O’Neil unable/unwilling to do anything to provide a cogent response for what had to have been at least 7 minutes before Koppel dismissed him as irrelevant.


Yes, I did see it. O'Riley was nice enough to show it. If I was shown that report for the first time then, had a mic shoved in my face just as the scene goes dark, I would react the same way. (Don't you like hatchet jobs like that?) Koppel never answered any of O’Neil’s questions about the video. Why did Koppel only interview O’Neil (who was not on site that day) and refused O’Neil’s offer to line up interviews with the other eye witnesses from the squadron? O’Neil pointed out that the people interviewed were living in a country where every thing said to western journalist is reviewed and approved by the party leadership. When he asked who you should believe "people from a totalitarian government that may not have even been there or Navy Sailors that was there", Koppel in an arrogant way dismissed the question as irrelevant. But sorry to say it is very relevant to me.

To try and bring this back to Dan Rather, the nightline report ranks as one sided and lack of credible sources as Rather's Bush Guard story.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Now, one could say, who would have the most to gain from lying?


Ooops, forgot this piece:

Kerry: Lie to become the President of the United States.

The Gunner: Lie to get his honor attacked, name smeared and gain no money for it.

You make your choice who has more to gain.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #16 By: jeblackstar - 11/24/2004 12:36:38 PM
I'll ask the question again. "So your saying that the *gunner* from Kerry's boat was a liar"?




Yes. Either that, or Senator Kerry was. Now, one could say, who would have the most to gain from lying? Kerry would gain some prestige by saying, "Hey, look at me, I'm a decorated war hero." and we could leave it at that. Or, one could look at the Gunner's testimony about the event. Testimony which doesn't match accounts from the time. Also, why did he wait so long to come out about it? If he had been so "outraged" about Kerry for so long, shouldn't he have said something before the election season?


You must also take into account the fact that the gunner's not the only one saying it. There were others present that back up the gunner, not kerry.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

O’Neil pointed out that the people interviewed were living in a country where every thing said to western journalist is reviewed and approved by the party leadership

youre saying that the videotaped segment was staged or that the questions were submitted in advance?   hundreds of people appear on koppel's show in the course of a year.  ive seen a great many of his broadcasts over the past 25 years.  i've rarely seen anyone prove himself to be a blathering idiot as successfully as oneil. the man could be america's own baghdad bob--if baghdad bob smoked crack.

Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
youre saying that the videotaped segment was staged or that the questions were submitted in advance?


Yes!

hundreds of people appear on koppel's show in the course of a year.


But these hundreds to people do not live in a country with only one party, which will place you in a Reeducation camp if you say the wrong thing. Thats if they are luck not to get a bullet in the head.

That is a country where no western news reporters are allowed out of the hotel without half a dozen party officials within twenty feet of them, and no film footage is allowed out of the country without the party approving it first.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

youre saying that the videotaped segment was staged or that the questions were submitted in advance?

Yes!

koppel wouldnt be part of that--he's consistently refused to air segments over which he didnt have total control. the vietnamese government is considerably less restrictive than china and i talk freely with people in china frequently.

hundreds of people appear on koppel's show in the course of a year

please reread my full statement.  i wasnt referring to people in vietnam...i was prefacing a remark about john oneil's pathetic performance in response to your suggestion he was the victim of a hatchet job.  (he woulda been bette off if that was true)

Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
koppel wouldnt be part of that--he's consistently refused to air segments over which he didnt have total control.


Lets see, he sent a crew there to get information that Kerry did exactly this or that. He got exactly what he wanted. I think that's total control.

I'm sure if he was trying to to disprove Kerry's story, then he would not of gotten exactly what he wanted.


the vietnamese government is considerably less restrictive than china and i talk freely with people in china frequently.


Please read this web site and find one thing that is negative about Vietnam Link

Here is some info on Vietnam's restrictions:

"The communist authorities keep the foreign media here under a tight leash, requiring journalists to seek advance approval for all travel outside the capital.

The press law even stipulates that journalists must apply to the foreign ministry for approval four days in advance of any interview, by telephone or in person, with a Vietnamese national."

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newsdaily/s337071.htm

Also Human Rights Watch has to disagree with you too. There is also some good reading about internet access that would make Vietnam more restrictive then China.:

"Foreign journalists based in Vietnam received strong warnings from government officials after trying to contact and interview dissidents. On December 26, 1999, Pham The Hung, a French journalist for Radio France International, was expelled from Vietnam after meeting with Catholics whose names were not on a list of interviewees he had submitted with his journalist visa request. In April, French reporter Arnaud Dubus, traveling on a tourist visa, was interrogated and had his notes confiscated by police after he met with several dissidents. On April 12, security police in Ho Chi Minh City arrested Sylvaine Pasquier, a reporter for the French weekly L'Express, after she tried to meet dissident Nguyen Dan Que. Pasquier was deported on April 14."

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/vietnam.html

Now for your China comment:

"China requires foreign broadcasters to use a designated Chinese satellite to transmit signals into the country.
A seven-second delay between the time signals reach the satellite and the time they are retransmitted to cable viewers allows censors to selectively black out programming.
The censorship process predates the SARS epidemic.
In recent months, many CNN reports on controversial government issues -- human rights, Tibet, and the Falun Gong spiritual movement -- have been blacked out."

http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=-1&urlID=6297713&fb=Y&partnerID=2006

I hate it went people try and protray a communist country as free and open. When those gevernments don't think twice about snuffing out the life of one of thier own and feed propaganda to thier people.

about john oneil's pathetic performance in response to your suggestion he was the victim of a hatchet job.


Your talking to a person who did see the interview and it was a hatchet job. Koppel was an aragant ass on that show, not wanting to even carry a diolog with him or answer any of his questions about the footage. If you want to ignore my examples above, that it was a hatchet job, then to bad. Two people can watch the same interview and see diffrent things. Where you see a pathetic performance, I see a man who just got jumped on a subject that he didn't know he was coming into a interview for (As he stated on the O'Riley show).

That's My Two Cents
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm sure if he was trying to to disprove Kerry's story, then he would not of gotten exactly what he wanted.

did oreilly broadcast koppel's closing statements?   if so, you heard him say that, unlike the then-unamed westerners who showed up in the village and left when the villagers told him their story, he felt obligated to report what theyd found no matter which side the villagers remembrances supported.  koppel is as objective a correspondant--and i dont think youll find any responsible journalists or critics who disagree with me--as there is in american journalism. 

yes. foreign journalists are required to register with the vietnamese government but that doesnt entitle them to approve the content of interviews.  the villagers had first learned one of the swiftboat vets who they fought with was a presidential candidate from the first westerner who asked them about the incident. they provided the same answers to him and to koppel. 

if you had been engaged in a personal campaign against another person for 30 years, do you really feel youd be unable to discuss it when given an opportunity.  if you knew you were correct, i doubt that after all that time, youd suddenly be rendered unable to answer some very simple questions whether or not you were suddenly presented with an account of which you had no previous knowledge because--this is very crucial--you KNOW the true story. facts are facts.  no matter what anyone else says, if you are in possession of them and youve been presenting them correctly for 30 years, how could an trumped up account confuse you? 

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

"China requires foreign broadcasters to use a designated Chinese satellite to transmit signals into the country.
A seven-second delay between the time signals reach the satellite and the time they are retransmitted to cable viewers allows censors to selectively black out programming.
The censorship process predates the SARS epidemic.
In recent months, many CNN reports on controversial government issues -- human rights, Tibet, and the Falun Gong spiritual movement -- have been blacked out."

their concern about information coming into the country has no relation to reports being broadcast outside of china.  im not defending a totalitarian state or saying things are free and open.  what i am saying is that over the past several years (your vietnam info is from 5 years ago) there is considerably more openness than ever before. 

vietnam has welcomed former us troops who fought there in the 60s and 70s as well as people like george mcnamara--who was as responsible as anyone for bombing the shit outta hanoi--who wish to see what life is like there now.  private enterprise is not only permitted but encouraged. vietnam now provides much of the farmed shrimp and coffee--just to name two commodities--sold in the us today.