Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (24144)	12/31/2004 1:18:37 PM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Dan Rather is an interesting choice it was a lame apology after days of defending the very thing he apologized for when it became crystal clear to everyone it was indefensible he wasn't sorry he rushed to use unresearched documents as much as he was sorry he was caught using them still, it was perhaps the most satisfying few minutes of television that I have ever watched Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome. Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question. But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism. Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. I give it a 10 in the cornered apology category and I applaud his retirement

To: Suma who wrote (24144)	12/31/2004 2:23:07 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

What did you use Dan Rather for? Was it evidence of liberal propaganda being used in an attempt to unseat a sitting President, ET AL? I completely agree with you on that point. It certainly can't be his apology. You might want to compare his apology against his actions. There is a severe mismatch. He ignored serious warnings from experts & ran with the story anyway. And he failed to report that CBS own experts had made many warnings about the lack of authenticity of those forged documents. He repeatedly misled America about the two experts he relied on. They never authenticated the forged documents, yet Rather push his story as if they did. Rather continued to push those obviously bogus documents long after it was shown they were obviously poor quality forgeries. He lied about his "unimpeachable sources". He still believes the obviously forged documents were "fake but accurate" & said so on camera. Etc., etc., etc. Rather's lies, misrepresentations, distortions, deceit, unethical behavior & obvious anti-Bush liberal agenda remain unapologized for. Compare the reality of the scandal to Rather's apology. His apology was just as bogus as the forged documents. Bye the way, has Rather ever declared a winner in the Presidential election yet?