Old news, but I just watched the movie, "Truth", which is about the George W. Bush National Guard scandal which cost Dan Rather his job. The book "Rather Outspoken", was much better than the movie, but I'm wondering how you all feel about the controversy.

I've never understood why more push wasn't made to subpoena the original documents from the military.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

I've never understood why more push wasn't made to subpoena the original documents from the military.

Daddy?

---

I've never understood why more push wasn't made to subpoena the original documents from the military.

Daddy?

Well, yes, but how could he have that much power?

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Well, yes, but how could he have that much power?
____________

$

---

I've never understood why more push wasn't made to subpoena the original documents from the military.

Daddy?

Well, yes, but how could he have that much power?

Maybe it was all BS?

---

[/quote]

Old James

Old news, but I just watched the movie, "Truth", which is about the George W. Bush National Guard scandal which cost Dan Rather his job. The book "Rather Outspoken", was much better than the movie, but I'm wondering how you all feel about the controversy.

I've never understood why more push wasn't made to subpoena the original documents from the military.

You *DO* pick the subjects, don't you Gordon Lowe... <grin>

I'm wondering.... Exactly *which* controversy are you referring to? There are several separate controversies here.

Namely:

1. Actions by Dubya in supposedly 'dodging' the draft during the Vietnam war by joining the 147th fighter/interceptor group of the TxANG.
2. Dubya's actions leading to his getting removed from flight status in the 147th.
3. Dubya's supposed failure to report to the ANG unit in another state he 'transferred' to in order to work as a pilot in someone else's political campaign.
4. Rather's and Mapes's apparent lack of due diligence in their decision to publish 'the documents'.
5. CBS's decision to throw Rather and Mapes 'under the bus'.

I have not seen the movie "Truth", nor have I read the book "Rather Outspoken", and I don't really have a desire to do so. I just don't see the need to do so. I do have a degree of personal knowledge on parts of the subject. Others might benefit from doing so. From reading a review of Rather's book (and the movie you mentioned), I must say that I would likely agree with you about the book being better.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-griffith/rather-outspoken-review_b_1531866.html

I am in total agreement with much of what Griffith says in the review, and don't really oppose much of any of it. The following stands out:

Finally, the story aired. It got some traction. And then, as if according to a playbook, the documents were attacked. The same technique used on Mr. Obama (the birth certificate was forged!?). After reading Rather's book, it's clear the proof of Bush W.'s AWOL was well established. Rather and Mapes didn't even need the documents.

Viacom/CBS followed up with an "independent" investigation. Heading the "independent investigation" was a well-known Republican and long-time friend of Bush's daddy. "Beware yon Cassius has a mean and hungry look."

This is how our politicized and corporate media works today. It has become so common to shoot the messenger, other reporters just fall in line and keep quiet. If Dan Rather can get set up -- who are we to think we won't be targeted too? Better to play it safe and avoid investigative reporting. Trouble is, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, "ignorant citizens" cannot support a democracy.

I've never understood why more push wasn't made to subpoena the original documents from the military.

This is easy to answer...

1. The events happened over 30 years previous to the 2004 story. Many of the people involved had passed away, and many more were quite elderly.

2. These records were hardly computerized, therefore NOT easy to search without combing through box after box of papers, or maybe spool after spool of microfilm for those that had been converted to that format. It IS the late 60's and early 70's that we are talking about.

3. Said search would be quite expensive to undertake and would almost certainly have to be conducted by military personnel due to the classified nature of said military records.

4. The subject of said probe, namely one George W. Bush, was at the time the President of the United States, therefore Commander-in-Chief of the Federal US Military, therefore in a position to block searches of the Federal US Military records.

5. The subject of said probe, namely one George W. Bush, had as his handpicked successor as Texas Governor one Rick Perry. Rick Perry, by virtue of his office as Texas Governor, was Commander-in-Chief of the Texas National Guard (unless it was Federalized), therefore in a position to block searches of the Texas National Guard records. If the Texas National Guard WAS Federalized, it would come under authority of George W. Bush... See #4.

6. These probes would have to be done under the authority of either a criminal court case, a civil court case, or a Congressional investigation as a prelude to impeachment. It is exceedingly difficult to prosecute a sitting US President in Court, leaving us with pretty much only Congressional Impeachment proceedings. However, at the time (2004), both houses of Congress were Republican Majority. Good Luck getting a President impeached when his party controls Congress.

7. At the time of the earlier events(#1), Dubya's Daddy was a member of the US House of Representatives. Later events(#2,#3), Dubya's Daddy was US Ambassador to the UN. Rightly or wrongly (and IMO it is wrongly), RHIP... Rank Hath Its Privileges.

8. Out of other options, Rather and Mapes decided to have the case tried in the Court of Public Opinion. However, they made the BAD decision to include 'the documents', apparently without performing enough due diligence on them. They were trivially easy to show to be forgeries, even though the information (in at least the ones I saw) in them were by and large correct. The fallout of this error, since their big boss (Redstone of Viacom) favored Republican administrations, was that Rather and Mapes were effectively fired. And this is a sad thing. I have always had a lot of respect for Rather's journalistic abilities, though I have not always agreed with his viewpoints. He was GOOD at it. We are all the poorer for his loss in our journalistic ranks.

You are also correct in that this is old news. I must wonder why it is coming to the fore again, 12 years after 2004...

It might have been relevant back in 2004, but today?

We have had 7 years of a Democrat President (Obama). The first two of which had Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, in addition to the Presidency. The next 4 of which had the Democrats controlling the US Senate, in addition to the Presidency.

Are the Democrats still so unwilling to own their own mistakes that they are still trying to blame everything bad that happens on Bush??? The Democrats desperately need a new game plan. Their 'Blame Bush' playbook is a little... stale.

Are the Democrats still so unwilling to own their own mistakes that they are still trying to blame everything bad that happens on Bush??? The Democrats desperately need a new game plan. Their 'Blame Bush' playbook is a little... stale.

EBIB Everything Bad Is Bush

---

Are the Democrats still so unwilling to own their own mistakes that they are still trying to blame everything bad that happens on Bush??? The Democrats desperately need a new game plan. Their 'Blame Bush' playbook is a little... stale.

I call straw man. What, other than the events around the reporting of George W. Bush's National Guard record, is being blamed on anyone in Rather's book? Does Dan Rather speak on behalf of the Democrats? Have Democrats used the book as a reason to blame "everything bad that happens" on Bush?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Are the Democrats still so unwilling to own their own mistakes that they are still trying to blame everything bad that happens on Bush??? The Democrats desperately need a new game plan. Their 'Blame Bush' playbook is a little... stale.

I call straw man. What, other than the events around the reporting of George W. Bush's National Guard record, is being blamed on anyone in Rather's book? Does Dan Rather speak on behalf of the Democrats? Have Democrats used the book as a reason to blame "everything bad that happens" on Bush?

My two cents: a decent movie and a decent book take time. MajorKong indicates Rather had generally been a good investigative journalist, right? When did his book come out? When did the movie come out? If recently, no wonder Gordon asked. Otherwise, I agree with "Why bring it up now?"

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I'm not sure off the top of my head when the book came out, but I read it a couple years ago, and the movie came out sometime late last year.

MajorKong summed things up pretty well, but it just seemed like a sad and unfair end to Rather's career.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

p.s. Roger Mudd(another esteemed CBS news veteran) also has a book out there, and he briefly mentioned Dan a couple times, but there was no word at all of Mudd in Rather's book. (Just something I found interesting, and not really related to the topic of this thread)

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Other than being a lesson in power what difference does it make now?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Other than being a lesson in power what difference does it make now?

It could be another attempt to link Jeb to his brother and poison the well.
The problem is, Jeb has a record as a governor of Florida that would be better examined, with its weakness and ... presumably, strengths. (An example of a weakness: the idea of publicly shaming unwed mothers.)

(Fair and balanced: Hillary was against baking cookies and standing by her man until she was for it.)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Are the Democrats still so unwilling to own their own mistakes that they are still trying to blame everything bad that happens on Bush??? The Democrats desperately need a new game plan. Their 'Blame Bush' playbook is a little... stale.

I call straw man. What, other than the events around the reporting of George W. Bush's National Guard record, is being blamed on anyone in Rather's book? Does Dan Rather speak on behalf of the Democrats? Have Democrats used the book as a reason to blame "everything bad that happens" on Bush?

My two cents: a decent movie and a decent book take time. MajorKong indicates Rather had generally been a good investigative journalist, right? When did his book come out?

Amazon's look inside feature shows the book's earliest copyright as being 2005.

When did the movie come out?

October 30th 2015 (source).

If recently, no wonder Gordon asked. Otherwise, I agree with "Why bring it up now?"

The OP says "[...] I just watched the movie [...]".

So far there's been no response to my questions concerning what, if anything, the Democrats have used this book/movie as an excuse to blame Bush for anything, perhaps straw man was wrong, maybe "hand waving" was a better description.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Other than being a lesson in power what difference does it make now?

It could be another attempt to link Jeb to his brother and poison the well.

Any evidence to suggest this has happened (or was a motive for making the movie)?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Other than being a lesson in power what difference does it make now?

It could be another attempt to link Jeb to his brother and poison the well.

Any evidence to suggest this has happened (or was a motive for making the movie)?

Just hypothesizing. As I said, one might be better served looking at Jeb's own record in Florida.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Other than being a lesson in power what difference does it make now?

Another one of them is running for Pres, and he's already in the government .

enough said as to why Daddy and Uncle can't be touched

or am I just being paranoid

---

Other than being a lesson in power what difference does it make now?

Another one of them is running for Pres, and he's already in the government .

enough said as to why Daddy and Uncle can't be touched

or am I just being paranoid

Who are you talking about?

The only Bush currently running for President is 'Jeb' Bush. He is not currently 'in the Government'.

He used to be... Governor of Florida from Jan. 5, 1999 to Jan. 5, 2007... but he is not now holding office.

To the best of my knowledge, the only Bush currently 'in Government' is Jeb's son, George P. Bush. He is the currently elected Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas.

However, George P. Bush is NOT (yet) running for President. No doubt he will at some point in the future. He is only 39 right now, ya know.

Of course, in his case, it wouldn't be 'Daddy and Uncle'... it would be Grandpa (George H.W. Bush) and Uncle (George W. Bush). Of course, if elected President, he would likely get called 'George the 3rd'... ROFL

<shrug>

he would likely get called 'George the 3rd'... ROFL

More likely Pee

---