Dan Rather...Leaker for the PTB?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:18 am

But this is the thing: Those memos weren't very damning, in themselves. And the issues they reveal are trivial compared to whatever the papers that explain exactly how Bush was honorably discharged a year before his service obligation was up so that he could attend Harvard Business School. During wartime.

Because that's just fucking unheard of.


A little background for the younger generation here. In those days, everybody who could was looking for some sort of deferment from the draft. It was the days of the meat grinder draft, and the draft-age kids learned in short order that Viet Nam wasn't the place to go. It wasn't even dishonorable to get a deferment--or to escape to Canada. Remember, over 50,000 Americans, mostly young males, died over there, and most of those didn't want to be there. What for? It was a stupid war. There were deferments for college kids at first, then the college boys had to have better and better grades to get their deferments, then they had to be married, then they had to have kids. Anal cysts worked for Rush, but I still can't figure out how it worked for long enough to keep him from being sent. He must have got the cysts from active service to his country. In those days, the National Guard WAS a deferment, not like today. In those days, the National Guard stayed at home, period.

The long and short of it is that back then, Bush's ~deferment~ would have been a non-story. Who would have thought so much would have changed that it would have become a big enough issue that there would have been these kinds of shenanigans to keep the story under wraps? Sheesh., have times ever changed.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:48 am

The long and short of it is that back then, Bush's ~deferment~ would have been a non-story. Who would have thought so much would have changed that it would have become a big enough issue that there would have been these kinds of shenanigans to keep the story under wraps? Sheesh., have times ever changed.


Well...He did have to learn to fly, although something evidently caused him to forget at the beginning of the '72-'73 period I'm interested in. But yes, it was the easy way to go, definitely. He was in what was known as the Champagne Unit, along with Lloyd Bentsen's kid and John Connally's kid, both of whom met their service obligations. When I said it was unheard of, what I meant was: According to a number people who had spent their careers working for the Texas Air National Guard, including during the late '60s and early '70s. They had literally never heard of anyone else who just walked off the base because he had better things to do. The military kind of frowns on that type of thing.

I didn't get far enough that I could responsibly say what got covered up. But I don't really have any doubt that something did, and that it was serious. Basically, I don't know what went down, although I did have one unproven hypothesis that was outperforming the others. If I had gotten closer, it might not have looked like what it did from the vantage-point at which I left it. But fwiw, from there what it looked like was: He was involved in some shenanigans nasty enough that they had the potential to fuck up Poppy's career. So arrangements were made to contain the information even at the time.

It also looked like it would still be a career-killer, whatever it was. For example, here are the first two paragraphs of a story Swiftboat-book author and all-around right-wing apparatchik Jermome Corsi wrote back in 2005 for WorldNetDaily, which really didn't want Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and wasn't too shy to issue veiled threats to keep her off it.

Except that when I first printed it out, the scandalous, Presidency-ending truth that the second paragraph predicts will be revealed was something to the effect of "the truth about George Bush's National Guard Service," And...I'm about 94.9 percent certain of that. Which is pretty sure. I mean, I do still have the hard copy. But I'd have to move a lot of boxes to get to it. And anyway, it also looked like a sinkhole that had swallowed more than one scandal over the years, including some hinky shit with the Lottery, as well as some dubious activities down Honduras way in the early '80s. So it's all just one great big sprawling, interrelated mass of shenanigans, at the end of the day. Or I should say: That's what it appeared to be. Since that's really all I know.

The headline, in which I am embedding the link is:

Larry Littwin: George Bush's John Dean

    Before Larry Littwin is subpoenaed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers should withdraw her nomination. If she does not, the threat is that the Bush administration may unravel before one year is complete in the second term.

    Larry Littwin sits at the center the Texas Lottery Commission scandals that Harriet Miers has helped keep covered up for nearly 10 years. The moment Larry Littwin begins to testify under oath, he is going to bring forward a volume of detail and possibly even documents that threaten to bring down the Bush presidency itself. Make no mistake about it – Larry Littwin is the John Dean of the George W. Bush presidency.


Those are strong words, which when they were fresh and new, emphasized his Guard service in the veiled threat (I'm almost positive; also, IIRC, there was a question mark in the headline, a la "Will Larry Littwin be...etc?")

But....whatever's under those wraps, it's more than featherbedding, imo, is my point.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Code Unknown » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:30 pm

compared2what? wrote:Of course he's a tool. You don't go into that line of work at all if you're not. You certainly don't rise to the top of it. But within those admittedly very loose parameters, he was a journalist of good repute. All of whom err sometimes. And he didn't deserve to go down for a story on which the odds are that he wasn't substantially in error. I mean, that's show business, and there are certainly bigger tragedies in the world. So I have no very major quarrel with anyone about it. I'm just saying.


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/23/o ... fghanistan

ANJALI KAMAT: Elizabeth Gould, I want to come back to this country and how the narrative about what happened in Afghanistan was talked about and created in this country. Dan Rather—you write extensively about Dan Rather in your book, former news anchor for CBS Evening News and now managing editor and anchor of Dan Rather Reports on HDNet. He was on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show last month discussing Afghanistan.

DAN RATHER: The ancient Greeks, the British and the Soviets tried to do a version of what we’re doing. But I do feel obliged to say, because it’s true, that they all tried to colonize Afghanistan. We are not seeking to colonize Afghanistan. The Soviets made no bones about it. They were coming in to take over the country. They wanted to run the country, wanted to be there a hundred or thousand years from now. That is not the case with what we’re trying to do.

ANJALI KAMAT: Elizabeth Gould, your response?

ELIZABETH GOULD: First of all, we have to go back and really look at Dan Rather’s contribution to the way in which the story was framed originally back in the early 1980s. After the Soviets crossed the border, Dan Rather was really the first person—the first journalist who really established the idea that this war should be viewed through superpower confrontation between, you know, basically the evil empire and the freedom fighters. And this was actually documented by Jay Peterzell, who wrote an article in the Columbia Journalism Review that was out in the—I think it was in the spring of 1981, which actually analyzed the way the reporting was happening in our country about Afghanistan and how it suddenly changed after Dan Rather had this report on 60 Minutes. This is when he had gone into the mountains in Afghanistan through Pakistan, and he had gone in to basically talk with the Mujahideen. And Peterzell’s comments, in his review, highlighted the fact that it was a very—he was very skeptical of how serious Rather was at really probing into the deeper implications of where the financing was coming from, and the fact at the time was the financing was coming from the United States. But suddenly the reporting changed after Dan Rather’s report. So he became the sort of the tone of the storytelling.

And we did our first story for CBS News, and we experienced that tone. It was very interesting to see the way they looked at the material, where we brought back a story that indicated there was a more complex story, that there was an Afghan civil war going on, that there was an issue that had to focus on the Afghan part of it. There was no interest. The only interest they had was in focusing on the amount of Russians in the street and the American viewpoint that this was a holy war against the evil empire. And then, once that was established throughout the 1980s, it continued.

And then we experienced again, in 1983, when we took Roger Fisher from the Harvard Negotiation Project to Afghanistan to assess the possibility that the Soviets could be negotiated out, and Roger’s assessment did show that that possibility exists. We brought that back to Nightline. And instead of really making it clear, the presentation really left a confusion in any viewer who would have seen that Nightline that that possibility existed. So, at the point when there was really a possibility, that’s when a lot of the increased funding really started flowing in to increase the insurgency, which actually was one of the major reasons that the Soviets claim that they couldn’t withdraw.
Code Unknown
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:54 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Code Unknown » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:32 pm

P.S. Fuck Rachel Maddow.
Code Unknown
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:54 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:02 pm

P.S. Fuck Rachel Maddow


Humph, fat chance you'd ever get that lucky, CU.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Code Unknown » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:37 am

chiggerbit wrote:
P.S. Fuck Rachel Maddow


Humph, fat chance you'd ever get that lucky, CU.


If that's lucky, thank God I'm not.
Code Unknown
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:54 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Silverfox » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:52 pm

There seems to be a marked tendency to forget that the real PTB always play both sides of the street and arrange their affairs to maximize their profits regardless of which way the scales are ultimately tipped.

They are neither "good" nor "bad" in that sense merely unscrupulous and unconsionable opportunists who's distorted sense of superiority is constantly rewarded and reinforced by the altogether predictable behavior of all those they happen to exploit.

They're certainly not interested in the outcome of any of the pitched battles between the public and any of it's percieved foes or woes. What they are interested in is cashing in on any situations that can conveniently be turned into a provocative event and then providing as much ammunition to both sides as they possibly can for fun and profit.

The real problem isn't that any of the typically "good guys" and "bad guys" are all merely usefull puppets in any and every event they choose to take an interest in but that the vast majority of Americans actually believe in such a two-dimensional picture of both themselves and the world they happen to live in.

Dan Rather is merely what everyone else is, just another pawn who sincerely believes in "good guys" and "bad guys" and that he's honestly doing his bit to prove to himself and everyone else that he's clearly one of the guys that are wearing the "white hats".

So too are most of the posters on this forum, incidentally.
Fondest Regards From the Fox
Silverfox
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:11 pm
Location: Great White North
Blog: View Blog (0)

Dan in Real Life?

Postby MinM » Sun May 20, 2012 10:15 am

operator kos wrote:Everyone knows about DR's comments regarding Building 7, and then there's also this 25-second gem about bombs on the GW Bridge on 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06VX8ijYihU

Dan Rather was/is a tool -- but he was fairly solid in covering the 1993 WTC Bombing:

YouTube - Rare TV NEWS report about WTC bombing FBI Foreknowledge

and 9/11.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... p?p=227761


Dan Rather Touches the Truth - The Education Forum
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Dan Rather...Leaker for the PTB?

Postby MinM » Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:49 am

Posted 31 June 2016 - 04:59 PM by Jim DiEugenio

One of the things I liked about the movie Truth, was the portrayal of Rather by Robert Redford, who is an underrated actor.

He played him as more or less an average guy who had been elevated onto a stage and position that was too exalted for him.

Which is more or less, the big problem we have had in this country with our big name nightly news anchors. In no other country I can think of, are they allowed to wield the power, or take down as much money as in the good ole USA.

Rather took over for Cronkite and made more dough than Walter but yet, CBS Nightly News slowly lost its number one position under Rather. Until it actually was third in the ratings...

To me, this sums up Dan Rather and his career:



http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... opic=22914

viewtopic.php?p=457517#p457517
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest