Monday, September 24, 2007

Rathergate

To Mr Blanchard in regards to his comments over at South Dakota Politics.
Dear Bob:

Thanks for the comment. However, I cannot agree. It was and now is again up to Rather to show that the facts are as he reported them, not up to Bush to debunk them.

The only things new in the Sept. 2004 story were the claims that George Bush, as a national guard pilot, ignored an order to get a physical, and that his commanding officer felt pressured by the Bush family to go easy on George W. Those claims rested solely on the documents that, Rather himself admitted, "cannot be authenticated." The story collapsed.

Rather's news team allowed itself to be hoodwinked by two-bit Democratic hack. CBS responded by canning him. The ignominious end to his career obviously left a deep emotional wound that has not faded over the last three years. He has coped by persuading himself that it was all someone else's fault. That is the basis of his ludicrous law suit. All this is rather pathetic, don't you think?
I kind of hate to do this but since Ken decided to post his response to my comments on his KELO post in a forum (his blog) that doesn't allow for further commenting, I will have to post my response here.

First off Ken, my last name is spelled Schwartz NOT Swartz, secondly defending Dan Rather or his lawsuit was never my intention which was the reason behind the "not because he reported a lie. He just lied in his reporting." comment in my initial response. Of course he screwed the pooch when he used falsified documents in his story and he is now trying to throw the blame for that on everyone but himself which is further hurting what is left of his battered reputation, though I think he believes that this lawsuit will help him regain his reputation.

My comment was more directed towards the initial allegations that CBS news and Rather reported on. No one ever stepped forward to debunk the allegations and the whole time was spent by the Bush propaganda machine, in this case blogs like Powerline, attacking the messenger. There has always been questions about Bush's military service and I personally believe that Rather knew this but couldn't find the smoking gun to prove it so instead he manufactured it. He got exactly what he deserved but my thoughts on the lawsuit being brought by Rather are that it could actually again start the discussions over Bush's military record (it already has hasn't it?) and expose something that Bush had hoped had died when Rather was sent out to pasture.

You used a link to a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial in supporting your claim but you somehow missed the part of that same editorial which is the basis of my comment in the first place.
Worst of all, Rathergate deflected the spotlight from the content of the documents, which suggested the younger George Bush had, to put it courteously, a broad attitude toward his military duties and may have received favoritism from superiors on little details like physical exams and showing up. Subsequent evidence appears to suggest some truth to these allegations. But the world doesn't care about any of that any more. Blame Rathergate.
Nice Rovian tactic by deflecting the actual intent of my comments there Ken. Again I wasn't defending Rather, I was just stating that Rather's conclusions could have in fact been correct and that the controversy surrounding his bogus documents clouded that issue. As was the case the first time around, it is apparent that the focus of the right will be to again attack Rather while ignoring the bigger issue, your post is a perfect case in point of how things work. But just because Rather's lawsuit is likely without merit in a court of law, the facts in regards to Bush's military service, or apparent lack thereof, have never been answered and are now being discussed again.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Anonymous comments are allowed as long a you pick a pseudonym and stick with it. Posting under multiple names is not permitted and will result in all comments being deleted.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.