I don’t have a source other than distinctly remembering watching this on TV when it happened. I was watching the news with my parents and I remember the grumbling after this occurred. I know this wasn’t something I imagined but I looked and couldn’t find any mention of this on the interests (any Google searches were drowned out by his later bashing of Bush the Lesser).
What I don’t explicitly remember is if he said that he personally endorsed GHWB or if it was CBS endorsing him (hence the corporate overlords comment).
This isn’t unusual as most news outlets will endorse a candidate (or at just they used to).
Respectfully, it never happened. No nightly network news (big 3 only) has ever endorsed a candidate for president. Newspapers all the time, but not networks. It would be major news if a network anchor did so, as their credibility is (was) tied to their impartiality. And the networks never would have had an anchor announce an endorsement from “corporate overlords” for that same reason.
I also couldn’t find anything on the webz, which kind proves my point - you won’t be able to find a single instance of a nightly network news endorsing any candidate ever. If you find one, post one, and I’ll P2P you the cost of a case of your favorite beer.
Big, news-op military strikes usually raise presidents up in the polls. So I’m trying really, really, really hard to convince myself that the Syrian gas attack was nothing more than Assad acting on his own, and with no input from Trump-friendly Putin.
(I keed, I keed. I look forward to being proved wrong because I respect your posts and you, and am only arguing because I have the inverse memory (of that never ever happening)
By the way, I’ve always understood, but have never felt this sentiment until now:
You made me curious so I looked into this controversy. Seems like it is far from clear-cut.
The accusation that he did not complete bootcamp comes from a controversial self-published book - which means there were no editorial standards. I haven’t been able to track down the book to see what specific evidence is used against Rather, but there are broad criticisms that the author’s intent was to discredit anti-war veterans and that he often relied on absence of proof as proof of absence when the records he consulted are known to be spotty.
The article you linked is itself questionable. It quotes a line from Rather’s wikipedia entry as proof that he was discharged before completing bootcamp, but that is literally not what the quote says. making no mention of bootcamp either way. The source referenced by the wikipedia entry itself says, “Rather served a brief stint in the U.S. Marine Corps.”
I’d like to see some actual proof that he was discharged before completing bootcamp. So far, it looks like swiftboat-quality innuendo from people so biased that they would prefer misinterpretations that confirm their biases over actual facts. They literally have a section in the article titled “biased reporting” that starts off by saying, “We bear no malice toward an old man, still traumatized after all these years by his failure to achieve such a manly goal.”
Just finished watching "Ball of Confusion ", a documentary about the U.S. In 1968.
Dan Rather tried to interview an official delegate who was being forced off the floor at the Democratic convention in Chicago by Daley’s security goons (because he wasn’t on Humphrey’s side) and was beaten up by those same goons, on national television. The relative composure and professionalism with which he continued to report – while still gasping from the blows – was a stunning reminder to me of what news broadcasts used to be.
We did get through 1968, and we will get through this, but it’s not going to be quick or easy.
Further note that the facebook post being quoted here is clearly an opinion piece. An editorial, if you will. It is not a statement of fact, or a piece of objective journalism. There are no facts at issue in it; it is just one man’s opinion, posted on his own Facebook account.
Dan Rather’s credibility as a journalist or lack thereof is entirely immaterial to this opinion piece.
Certainly, ‘presidential’ in US terms means ‘killing people’, but I don’t see how the Russians colluded in getting their ally bombed. Or why. I think blaming everything on the Russians is wearing a bit thin.
What about all the “beautiful babies” that were “cruelly murdered” by the US’s “very barbaric attack”?
Awfully convenient that everyone talks about gas attack and the missile strike now. Strange that all those other attacks with chemical weapons weren’t such a problem warranting the glorious leader slapping his military dick around:
The US public love their military. If you pay hilariously large amounts of money for your penis extension you need to stroke it from time to time eh?
All the praise Trump gets now? It’s all over 2003 again:
Fox was the worst, but the rest of the mainstream media was clearly influenced by the perceived need to be “Americans first and journalists second.” This was manifested less in obviously biased or flawed stories than in subtler ways: the simple failure to investigate Bush administration claims, go outside the magic circle of approved wise men, or in general aggressively question the whole surreal adventure.
National governments, the boss media, and often the upper reaches of the corporations and academia. Here is Ritter in Huffpost on the uses made of the recent sarin (?) attacks in Syria by the aforesaid set in the U.S. (Why being blown to bits or starved or crudely beheaded by fanatics is preferable to being gassed, I don’t know, but that seems to be a widespread opinion and I won’t contest it here.) In the U.S. Russia is the current devil; I don’t know about the corresponding efforts of the corresponding sets in Russia, Iran, China, etc. etc. etc. but I have great faith that they are there, laboring away. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
