posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:22 PM
Do you think that if Dan Rather were to run the same story that got him fired in 2007 instead of 2004, that he would still have been fired?
Do you think that he should have been fired in the first place?
Wiki quote for a summary on what happened:
"On September 8, 2004, Rather reported on 60 Minutes Wednesday that a series of memos critical of President George W. Bush's Texas Air National
Guard service record had been discovered in the personal files of Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. The
authenticity of these documents, initially based on their being proportionally printed, was quickly called into question by a small group of
conservative bloggers, leading to claims that the memos were forgeries. The accusations then spread over the following days into mainstream media
outlets including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times.
Rather and CBS initially defended the story, insisting that the documents had been authenticated by experts. CBS was contradicted by some of the
experts it originally cited, of the four experts they claimed, they all retracted later. CBS later reported that their source for
the documents, former Texas Army National Guard officer Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, had misled the network about how he had obtained them.
On September 20, CBS retracted the story. Rather stated, "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."The controversy has been referred to by some as "Memogate" and
Following an investigation commissioned by CBS , CBS fired story producer Mary Mapes and asked three other producers connected with the
story to resign. Many believe Rather's retirement was hastened by this incident.
Conservative blog sites, especially the Free Republic  and Little Green Footballs, widely believe and have repeatedly claimed that the
documents are forgeries that were created in Microsoft Word and then repeatedly photocopied or faxed to make them look aged. On Thursday,
September 20, 2007, Rather was interviewed on Larry King Live commenting "Nobody has proved that they were fraudulent, much less a forgery. ...
The truth of this story stands up to this day"
I don't really think he should have been fired in the first place. Add to that that the only question seemed to be with the legitimacy of the
documents, not the subject matter, and I especially don't think he should have been fired. I also find it funny that conservatives wanted him ousted
for running a story that was based on bad intelligence, that criticized a president who started a war with a country based off of bad intelligence.
Kind of hypocritical.
If he were to run the same story today, I don't think it would even be a blip on the radar. I don't think Dan Rather is some sort of messiah or
anything, but I do think that he got a raw deal.