Just when you thought it was safe to turn on the evening news....he's baaack! Only Gunga Dan would have the lack of neurons to bring Rathergate back to the front burner. I would pay to see Dan get cross examined!!

I think this is great news. The disinformation specialists at CBS are finally going to pay for the whitewashing in the Thornburgh Report.
=====================

Exactly--Rather was as much a mishandler of this thing as anyone else at CBS.

He left the network voluntarily, as I understand it. How is this a lawsuit if the man left of his own accord?

That's what he was telling everybody at the time.

Sorry Kenneth Dan, your frequency of anchoring the news is now zero

As someone who does hallucinogenic drugs, I'm a complete waste case.

I've done so many drugs I've burned out my brain and I think Dan Rather is telling the truth.

I've been banned by this site for being a fruitcake but I ignored the ban.

Buh-bye troll. -P

Rather caught during conversation with his lawyers.

So is he planning to use the "Everyone knows I am a newsreader and not a reporter so I have no idea at all what the actual facts are in any given story" gambit? Or is he perhaps going for the "I am a sufferer of BDS and unaccountable for my actions because it is all Bush's fault." insanity angle?

My bet is on a settlement and I'll bet that's what Rather is betting. Wanna bet?

And PS:

DON'T change my post like that again.

-BC

Excuse me? DO you pay my bills? You where banned and you decided to post anyway. If you don't like it, don't post. -P]

When twoofers attack!

Actually, Danny Boy may not be as stupid as he looks. See-BS certainly does not want this issue to resurface again, especially with their ratings already in the toilet. They will likely settle to make it go away and Rather will claim he was vindicated.

Of course, if See-BS feel they have nothing more to lose anyway, they might just make Rather look like an idiot, a fairly easy task.

I just received this memo from a Kinko's in Texas... It comes from an unimpeachable source:

"BC is an asshole."

We checked with a secretary who said she doesn't remember typing the memo, but it sounded accurate.

Courage.

Just ignore BC, he's a kook. He's been banned multiple times.

There is no way Rather is going to win... Charles Johnson proved to the world that the Memos could be reproduced in Word.

Charles Johnson is such a brilliant guy for ratting Dan Rather out as a fraud. I love Charles Johnson.

Gee 70 mil, he should've gone for 75 mil to match his age. What the hell makes as much sense as 70.

70 mil for a show that spend as much time at the bottom of the ratings than at the top. Go figure.

I'm with Clay, the gutless wonders in the C-BS boardroom will knuckle under and settle, say 20 mil.

Then Rather will prance around like he was right all along. Although it won't be for long given his age.

BS:

But if it makes you happy, I'm done here. I have bigger fish to bash, gut and fry.

Must be sucker fish 'cause that's all that will bite on your trash.

BC is evidently as dumb as Dan Rather.

Funny how Dan gets interested in suing CBS a few weeks after Imus so efficiently sued and settled his own suit. Maybe Dan figures Imus softened 'em up some.

Buh-bye, BC. Write when you find work. And your ass.

Oh, and good luck with the drug thing. Prescription and otherwise.

I guess he didn't want to settle for just another book deal. Clown.

VAN ALLEN BELT (AP) - B(ig) C(hicken) filed a 70 cent lawsuit Wednesday against Wizbang, alleging that the Blog made him a "scapegoat" for a discredited story about a has-been hack reporter reporting a fabricated story on President Bush's National Guard service.

The infantile B(ig) C(hicken), whose final posts were clouded by controversy over the report of the report, says the complaint stems from "Wizbang's intentionally accurate reporting" of the aftermath of the story on the story.

The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court on Mars, also names Wizbang poster Paul and anyone who has ever read one of his posts (You know who you are!) and calls them all "Doody-heads".

B(ig) C(hicken), a former poster at Wizbang," is seeking 20 cents in compensatory damages and 50 cents in punitive damages.

Wizbang spokesman Anonymous said: "These complaints are old news, and this lawsuit is without merit."

There is an upside to the lawsuit.

We get to see two parties duke it out over what major pussy Bush was in evading active combat duty all over again.

PASS THE POPCORN!!!!

Sorry- "what A major pussy" teh komander guy was.

I havent watched the news in years and i sure dont care for ether cBS or DAN BLATHER we all know how liberal and left-wing these journalists are i mean WALLY KRONKITE was the best means of propeganda that the viet cong could afford

BC, or RehdStayteCollluedge, or whoever you are...

Why does this story hurt you so bad?

Dan, is that YOU?!?

wavemaker nailed it: Danny Boy saw that Imus got a bundle, and had second thoughts about his own severance package.

Big differences, though, naturally. Read your contracts before you sign 'em, boys, 'cause it's too late afterwards.

Imus was FIRED, probably in violation of the terms of his contract, and was entitled to recover. Notice even the one nappy-head 'ho' who sued him dropped the case with nuttin' but troubles.

Rather wasn't fired, he was RETIRED, undoubtedly in accordance with his contract terms, since he didn't really squawk about it at the time. He won't get a dime, but the publicity might help his 3 a.m. weekly "investigative" show on the gardening channel, or wherever it is.

Well, I'm just happy CBS's chickens are coming home to roost. Apparently CBS tried to thread the narrow path between slamming Rather like he deserved back then and taking the hit to the team, or trying to confuse everyone with the 'you can't disprove it, it's a copy' line from Thornburgh that has so sadly confused BC.

I'm pretty sure the suit won't get anywhere, since both parties have plenty of reason to hide the truth. But if it does, it could get fun.

BC is a reasonably fair conversant. He won't see that a copy cannot be authenticated without provenance, but can be shown to be false. So he is trying to show that the copies are not false, in the illogical belief that that would authenticate them. He really has allowed other evidence to convince him, evidence that any jury would be instructed to ignore. Why? 'Cuz it can't be proven.

Can't. Not logically, not sensibly, not possibly. So why does he, an otherwise sensible man, try. Good question, BC. Answer if you can.
===========================================

>BC is a reasonably fair conversant.

No. BC says that Charles Johnson's recreations in Microsoft word are invalid because he tried to recreated them using the same Times New Roman font IN WORDPERFECT and they did not match.

That's not an honest broker... that's a moron.

He's a kook. And a banned kook.

I once had a long, reasonably fair, conversation with him. He is so convinced of the accuracy of the memos, whether or not the provenance is genuine, that he seeks the validation of them in the recreation of the past. He misses the point that imaginary recreations fail in court against real evidence precisely because they cannot be proven, and real evidence can. The reconstructions of the TANG past differ, so historians rely on verifiable bits of history. The TANG memos are not verifiable. Despite BC's wishes.

On climate, on the other hand, he was just a stubborn loon, failing to look at the evidence to which he was directed.

I found him to be an honest debater; his flaw in persuasiveness is directly related to his inability to be persuaded.
=================================

He should look at it this way. If you have to depend on phony memos to make your case, maybe your case isn't true. Rather and Mapes were so convinced the story was true, they didn't do the minimal diligence to show that the memos were faked, and when it dawned on them that they had not done the diligence, they hoped, in their delusion, that the accuracy would carry the day. What they failed to realize, as does BC, that even if accurate, the memos can so easily be shown to be fake, that they ruin the argument for the accuracy.

So BC spins his wheels trying to establish the accuracy of the memos. At least Quixote tilted at windmills with real lances.
==============================

I mean, if you want to believe that Kerry's campaign was involved, as I do, in the whole 'Fortunate Son' caper, then it was just more hamhandedness on Kerry's fault. Remember, they were so shocked at the poor provenance of the memos, that they blamed Rove for planting them, realizing they'd been played, but not willing to admit that it was a fellow traveller who had inadvertently played them. Kerry really believes his Vietnam era service was more honorable than that of Bush. You could have predicted the Swifties, and you could have predicted Kerry's campaign would reach for the ridiculous in attempting to trash Bush's service.

And I particularly love the timing of this suit. The American Public can get the lowdown on the disinformation rife at MSM outlets in the context of us winning a war the press almost convinced the public we had lost.

If Rove didn't arrange this state of affairs, it sure looks like he did.
===============================

I doubt Dan ever expects to win this lawsuit. If you were CBS, wouldn't it be worth 5-10 million to you to pay off Rather and legally gag him from dredging up god knows what further embarrassments? That's what he's betting.

"I found him to be an honest debater; his flaw in persuasiveness is directly related to his inability to be persuaded."

Kim, I gotta disagree with you on that one. An honest debater would concede to points refuted with fact and logic (nay, they would have already anticipated them) and then would USE facts and logic that at least outweighed those of their opponent. You can't enter into a real debate on a subject such as the memos in which the most basic and fundamental evidence is a copy - and likely a copy of a copy. There's no debate to be had. The evidence itself does not live up to the proper standards to merit debate.

In essence, all BC (and Dan Rather) does is try to prove a preconceived notion of an individual by using evidence with no foundation. He's trying to prove something is real when it can't even be proved it's fake.

If you're implying that BC is honest in that he truly believes what he says, then yes. But some of the worst people in history truly believed in what they were doing/saying.

Of course you are correct, Oyster. You've got it in the last paragraph. At the very least, he was not abusive with me, and would agree to points. We had a long lost conversation, which no one else was watching, and there was surprising meeting of the minds. Like the Donklephant motto of which I am so proud. 'Huge Ass, Big Teeth, Surprisingly Reasonable'. Take away his delusions, and that boy can think. I miss him.
=================

Of course, I think BryanD's political commentary is the most acute of anyone I've run across. You think I'm joking.
=============================

By the way, the memos are proven to be fake. You've subconsciously accepted the big lie from the Thornburgh Report. A copy cannot be authenticated without provenance, but it can be debunked on its own standing.

This is what neither CBS nor Dan Rather, nor especially Thornburgh want brought back into public discourse. The disinformational news network, the foolish and stupid news anchor, and the unethical lawyer.
=================

Uh, I meant 'the motto of which I am so fond'. It must be unconscious envy of such sterling linings that made me slip such insinuation.
========================================

This lawsuit will go precisely nowhere. It will reach the discovery phase and then both sides will suddenly realize that all the dirty laundry is going to be brought out to get a fresh airing in public, for all to see, and then the suit will be quietly withdrawn, and everybody will pretend it never happened.

This, of course, assumes that CBS doesn't immediately cave. This is always a possibility.