Oh, Danny boy

Oh, Danny boy

: Dan Rather is throwing his boss, CBS News President Andrew Heyward, to the wolves in today’s New York Times:

“This is not verbatim,” Mr. Rather recalled. “But I said: ‘Andrew, if true, it’s breakthrough stuff. But I need to do something unusual. It may even be unique. I have to ask you to oversee, in a hands-on way, the handling of this story, because this is potentially the kind of thing that will cause great controversy.’

“He got it. He immediately agreed.”

Nope, Dan. It came out of your mouth. You’re responsible.

: It’s also troubling that the Rather camp apparently tells The Times that he is opposed to the appointment of Dick Thornburgh to the baby-blue commission investigating him:

Mr. Rather considers Mr. Thornburgh a confounding choice in part because he served two Republican presidents, Mr. Bush’s father, and Richard M. Nixon, with whom Mr. Rather publicly clashed, the colleagues and associates said.

Well, who the hell do you think they should appoint? Ted Kennedy?

  • Thomas E. Davis

    Someone needs to get some mental health help for Dan Rather. He is sick.

  • ken

    It’s interesting, though, that at least one right-wing blog (WizBang), that was obsessed with Rathergate/Memogate, jumped all over Thornburgh about five seconds after he was announced.

  • Angus Jung

    “Obsessed,” of course.

  • Carol

    Musn’t forget what’s really important here. That is that CBS,& Dan Rather,who is the Managing Editor and a very experienced, seasoned professional, still say they believe the Phoney
    documents are real. The real issue is hate for President Bush, even if it means putting someone in the Whitehouse who attended almost none of the National Security voting sessions & met with our N. Vietnam enemies in, surprise, surprise, Paris. Why didn’t CBS & Dan Rather feel that was news the American people deserved to know about Kerry????
    It is “my opinion” that a lot of people at CBS knew exactly how phoney their story was & are hoping the voters will be ignorant enough to believe them. They all need to get the axe and bring people that can tell the truth, make sure it’s the truth they are telling and not force their candidate down our throats. I personally resent it and will NEVER, NEVER, watch or trust CBS again.

  • old maltese

    Mr. Rather needs a research staff (!).
    Thornburgh served Nixon? Exactly when between 1969 and 1974 was that?
    From http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/govres/cwp/view.asp?Q=116791
    Thornburgh ‘… became Attorney General for Western Pennsylvania in 1969. In 1975 President Gerald Ford appointed him Assistant United States Attorney General, Criminal Division.’
    He was governor of Pennsylvania from 1979 to 1987.
    ‘After leaving office in Pennsylvania, President George Bush appointed Thornburgh as the United States Attorney General in 1988.’

  • old maltese

    — or maybe it’s ‘the colleagues and associates’ who don’t know what they’re talking about.

  • plep

    Why not Cronkite, fer chrissake? At least have a TV guy on there.

  • paladin

    Hey plep — don’t you think Cronkite might have some comflict of interest issues?

  • arjuna

    Great objectivity, Jeff! No, I agree, Thornburgh should investigate this just as Kenneth Starr investigated Whiter Water. Ofcourse, i credit you with not seeing any conflict of interest. If the investigator is appears to be pre-disposed against the subject of the investigation, wouldn’t that be the qualifying factor for conflict of interest. But then again, you must take your guidance in such matters from Scalia (go duck hunting).
    “…. Ted Kennedy.” Looks like you are contributed to the debate in a meanginful way; suppose your version of issue based politics. Ofcourse, it shouldn’t be Ted Kennedy, inspite your rheatorical excesses in argument. And neither should be Thornburgh. If with anybody like Ted Kennedy you lose the other half, with Thornburgh you lose the other half. Are you still talking about the accountability for most (if not all)?

  • Jack Tanner

    Ar –
    How could Dick Thornburg or Abbie Hoffman be presupposed against Dan Rather if Rather doesn’t have a political ideology?

  • arjuna

    Your issue:
    So your argument that one could not be pre-disposed against a subject lest the matter involve political ideology? I am sorry, but I really don’t know how to answer that. Perhaps you could enlighten me further.
    My issue:
    Issue related to the President whose father has decided, rather even publicly, to comment on the matter in rather strong terms – and his political appointee gets to investigate the aforementioned matter. Ah……. could you find me a better illustration of conflict of interest.

  • Richard Cook

    Thornburg is a somewhat unusual nomination but only because the Dark Lord Rove horsewhipped him in a trial in Austin after Thornburg did not pay for services Rove rendered. Thornburg might have an axe to grind. Maybe its important, maybe not. People more knowledgable than I will have to comment.

  • sam

    Ted Kennedy and Dan Burton . . .

  • paladin

    How about Al Gore (he used to be a journo) and Brit Hume?

  • JorgXMcKie

    Whoever said something to the effect that “Descending into Madness? Dan Rather is not descending into madness. He has reached his destination and is now cutting doughnuts in the front lawn of the Madhouse” was getting it right.

  • jimbo

    John Stossel – Commission of One!