While George Bush is still president after telling lies.

Dan Rather reported a story that was true. No one including Bush denies that what was reported was essentially the truth but rather that the documents were forged. Should Rather have checked more closely? Probably but is it reasonable that the anchor of CBS news can check every story he reports? Shouldn't other people do that for him?

Look at the facts: Rather's story told the truth and hurt no one (Bush was re-elected after all.)

Bush, on the other hand, used a forged document that he was told by the CIA was not genuine and that he shouldn't use. Rather thought that the document he was using was genuine while Bush knew the one he was using was not.

Even more importantly Rather's lie was harmless while Bush's lie has led to more then 3,700 dead American soldiers and perhaps a million dead Iraqis not to mention half a trillion dollars...

So please, can somebody tell me why Rather was fired but Bush still has his job?

Interesting point regarding Rather's lie being "harmless" since Bush was reelected. However, it seems clear from the lawsuit Rather would disagree with your interpretation, since most of his suit covers things that happened while he was still employed with CBS.

His lawsuit isn't based on his being fired, but on how he was treated while still working there. He was known for being self-important and this suit certainly backs that up. He's arguing CBS did not have the right to decide what stories one of their employees covered. (He appears to be particularly angry they didn't send him to cover Katrina.) He's also angry some colleagues, including Andy Rooney (whose sole job is to offer commentary) said bad things about him.

Interesting point regarding Rather's lie being "harmless." I would submit that anyone who has the responsibility of delivering the news every evening to a very large percentage of Americans that rely on him to give them the truth, also has the responsiblity to give truthful news. Just because it didn't have the impact that he was hoping for doesn't mean the lie was harmless.

It was very harmful to CBS. It was also another nail in the coffin for network news programs in general as, with new alternatives available, it was a straw on the proberbial camel's back. People don't like being lied to.

Dan Rather is a known liar. I bring to your attention the incident during his coverage of the Kennedy assassination, which by the way was how he really got his big break. Dan Rather reported, erroneously, that children were clapping and cheering in Dallas gradeschool classrooms upon hearing of the Kennedy assassination. He had no personal knowledge of this and no way to verify it. In fact, he probably just made it up. Yes, he apologized for this- MANY YEARS LATER. So, you have a guy right from the beginning that will either make up anything he can or report whatever he needs to in order to get a leg up on the competition despite the fact that the Kennedy assassination, in and of itself, was a HUGE story.

As we found out watching the OJ chronicles, the truth matters very little if you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Dan Rather reported a story that was true. No one including Bush denies that what was reported was essentially the truth but rather that the documents were forged."

Yes, not repeat the liberal mantra once more:

TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE; DO NOT BE MISLED BY FACTS!

Isn't it just terrible when you know the truth but just don't have any evidence?

TheRanger:

"Dan Rather reported a story that was true. No one including Bush denies that what was reported was essentially the truth but rather that the documents were forged."

Yes, not repeat the liberal mantra once more:

TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE; DO NOT BE MISLED BY FACTS!

Isn't it just terrible when you know the truth but just don't have any evidence?

Yes that's bad but what's worse is what Bush did which was not knowing the truth and using bogus documents to get us into an unneeded war.

Does Rather have a reponsibilty to verify his sources? Of course but as a question of degree his sin (not verifying forged documents about a true story) is not even in the same league as Bush's (being told the the documents were likely forgeries and using them anyway to get us involved in a war.)

I'd like to thank all the Bush Haters for facilitating an amusing little game I invented. Regardless of the content in the news I keep track of how long it takes someone from the left to blame Bush for something even the completely trivial items. It was exactly 3 hours before the Brain Trusts on the left found a way to fix blame on him for the bridge collapse in Minnesota.

Dan Rather was fired by CBS not GWB. He picked his target, Bush didn't say, "Hey Dirty Dan, go see if you can dig up some dirt on me." While he may have thought it was as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, it is infinitely amusing to know that he only shot his self in the foot.

Oh, and to the posting under another title in this subject that compared Rather's being in Viet Nam to Bush's not being there... I have never had, have not now and will NEVER have any extra respect for a network news reporter that goes to a war zone to cover the story. They only go for self-indulgent reasons and RARELY tell the truth. I would sit my sorry ass in Baghdad and watch lies coming across the screen from ALL THE NEWS CHANNELS~ FOX, CNN (Clinton News Network) (and don't get me started on that sorry ass MSNBC) about crap that I was watching happen. Commie Katie recently went to Iraq/Syria despite her admonish a while back that it was "too dangerous for a mom." Why, pray tell, did Commie Katie go? Well, the tell-all book that exposed how she broke all the feminists rules of engagement by sleeping her way to the top was about to burst on to the scene.

If Rather couldn't verify (etymology from the word for truth) the story, how did he know it was true? Just because he wanted to believe it, does not make it true.

What a sad state when you have to disprove an accusation in order for it not to be true. I always thought you were innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

PS

Was this the same problem Rather had in his story, "The Wall Within" where he knew the Vietnam War ruined all the soldiers lives but used soldiers who were not even in Vietnam?

Dan Rather is a reporter and was hired to tell the truth.

Bush is a supply-sider and was hired to cut taxes.

If Dan Rather somehow cut taxes, but still lied, he'd be fired: his job is to tell the truth.

Bush can lie all he wants, so long as keeps taxes low. In fact, the whole supply-side thing is a lie, so you could even say we HIRED him to lie.

If we wanted a president to tell the truth, we'd draft Carter. But nobody wants that! We want a liar in office.

Let OJ off because he killed just one but hang Manson because he was worse.

Let me ask a question:

What logic do you use to excuse Rather with your anti-Bush friends?

It obviously can't be the same.

A quick note, that is not the only time he LIED. When he lost the bidding for the Zabruder Film (he was bidding for CBS), against LIFE Magazine, upon departing the Waldorf he told the trong of reporters outside (paraphrase) "I have seen the film and the President"s head snaps FORWARD. This obviously was a lie. I have NEVER believed a word out of his mouth.

dims are not interested in truth, its not in them....

"Dan Rather is a reporter and was hired to tell the truth."

Since the memos are forgeries, once again we hear the echo of the liberal mantra:

TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE; DO NOT BE MISLED BY FACTS!

Sorry but a reporter is supposed to present the facts of Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Rather did not present any facts just as he did not in The Wall Within. He presented political spin.