Dan Rather's Vendetta Against The Bush Family

I'm talkin' about friendship. I'm talkin' about character. I'm talkin' about - hell, Leo, I ain't embarrassed to use the word - I'm talkin' about ethics.

-From the movie Miller's Crossing

It's becoming clear that at least a good part of the motivation behind Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS is his desire to harm the Bush Family.

When asked by Carol Joynt, host of the "Q&A Café" held at Nathans restaurant who worked with Rather at CBS in the 1970s, whether "he'd like to" call President Bush as a witness in the trial, Rather said "I'd like not to answer the question," leaving both Joynt and audience members wondering whether the newsman has Bush in his sights." Joynt later told Yeas & Nays, "From the look in his eye -- and he gave me a definite Ratheresque look -- I got the impression he will call the president as a witness. Possibly both of them: 41 and 43. He implied the suit is not against them, but what the suit is about stems directly from his antagonistic relationship with them."

Really stunning. Many of us remember the rude interview he conducted with then Vice President Bush over the Iran-Contra scandal. He finished off his career pushing a story that he hoped would unseat President George W. Bush. He really, really hates the Bushes and it looks like he's willing to do whatever he can to harass them.

Now, there's a part of this story I want to explore. Rather has stated many times that while the documents may have been fake (and he's not willing to concede that they are), they still have the story right. His most recent statement: "we got the truth, but we left ourselves vulnerable." Rather is so convinced of Bush's guilt that he can't let it go. It is possible that Rather is right and Bush got out of completing his military service thanks to daddy, but Rather didn't have the evidence...and that was the point of the fallout. I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of reporters who know things...really bad things, but they don't have evidence so they don't report it. It's a matter of ethics, remember those?

In this recent interview, Rather was asked if he thought President Bush hated him. Wouldn't a more apropos question be whether Rather hated Bush? He would deny it, of course, but it sure looks that way. This is what we on the Right side of the political spectrum are talking about when we cry liberal-bias in the media. It's that ingrained belief that one side is right and the other is wrong and it's their job, as journalists, to fight for their people and fight against their perceived enemies. Sure, everyone has their own personal biases, but Rather took it one step further. He abandoned the ethics of his profession in order to harm someone he sees as an adversary, and it looks like he isn't finished.