It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

"In good faith". What a load of carp. It was a hit piece, and Rather never cared whether the memos were real or not. Until today, his response has been to whine about no one paying attention to the "real story".

I agree with Robert, this "statement" is complete and utter bullshit.

...CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

ThiS is an outright lie.

Major CYA going on. I still think
Rather's daughter is involved in this and he wanted to make sure she would be protected from exposure before he made this statement.

An amusing thought just occured to me. Do you think that CBS will bend over backward now trying to be unbiased during the rest of the cycle before the election.

Wow! Talk about a silver lining. That Karl Rove really is a genius.

erp -

Do you think that CBS will bend over backward now trying to be unbiased during the rest of the cycle before the election.

Maybe, but who will watch at this point?

- If years from now this turns out to be a Rove masterpiece whole books will be written on "Giants in campaign stratedgy" with illustrations of Carl handing Terry a large coil of rope....

The error was made in "good faith," huh?

Was it "good faith" to:

(1) Use the documents despite the warnings of your qualified forensic experts that they might have come from a computer?

(2) Fail to disclose your experts doubts on the first and subsequent broadcasts?

(3) Fail to report on the analysis of all the qualified forensic document examiners, including Joseph Newcomer, who determined that the documents were forgeries?

(4) Defend the story with the facially ridiculous, known-to-be-nonsense opinions of non-experts Bill Glennon and Richard Katz?

(5) Fail to disclose that the relatives of Killian had disputed that he could type or kept private files?

(6) Claim that you didn't use Killian's relatives because they were not credible and politically biased, when your your own primary source, Ben Barnes, was a top democratic fundraiser?

(7) Fail to disclose that (a) Ben Barnes was the Vice Chairman of Kerry's Texas campaign committee, (b) Ben Barnes didn't first tell this story a few months ago while crying in front of the Vietnam Vet memorial, but five years ago during the last campaign (c) Ben Barnes' own daughter contradicted his story>

(8) Attack Laura Bush for having "no evidence" to back up her allegation of forgery, when CBS had no evidence of autenticity and plenty evidence of forgery?

(9) Dismiss Killian's secretary's claim that she thought the documents were fake -- by pointing out that she was not a document examiner -- without also reporting that all qualified experts thought they were fakes?

(10) Fail to report on any newscast that Col. Staudt had denied exerting influence, instead issuing a statement by spokeswoman Sandy Genelius that Staudt must be biased for denying allegations that were corroborated by nothing but the documents?

(11) Claim that your source was "unimpeachable," when in fact all you had was the word of the mentallly unstable Bill Burkett that HIS source was unimpeachable?

(12) Call your own experts liars for revealing that they had warned you they might be forgeries?

"That Karl Rove really is a genius."

As much as I love this idea, it's been so thoroughly debunked as a possibility that I can only dream about it. Definitely one for the history books were it to be unveiled in the future...

Let's see what Dantheman has to say about their unimpeachable source before we worry too much about the rest.

Seriously, Bill, you and Powerline, LGF etc. should make very formal and insistent demands -- which would be publicized all over the internet and ultimately on cable and the networks -- that CBS' investigatory panel have at least some blogger representation from those who were able to instantaneously refute what CBS had allegedly taken five years to research. I mean, seriously, if Bob Schieffer is still going to be permitted to moderate one of the debates . . .

CBS should not be allowed to have anything to do with the debates. but for this to happen, legal action has to begin now.

also, after reading Betsy's clip of Jim Geraghty's column, I have to agree: this statement is not acceptable, and many people deserve apologies on top of any appropriate legal action against CBS. and the first act of good faith is for the trail of the forgeries to be laid bare NOW.

nice try, Dan, but still a swing and a miss.

So the major media are going with the fake but accurate angle? They are going to make Bush and bloggers pay for outing their dishonesty. Meanwhile Kerry's sister is over in Australia warning them to stop supporting the US in Iraq or face further terrorist attacks. I just became a dedicated Republican.

There's talk that Cleland was the source of the documents. I look forward to this headline at CBS.

"Bush Appointee Source of Forgeries"

Max Cleland, appointed by George Bush to ....,

CBS also said it was commissioning an independent review of the incident, and will announce the names of the people conducting the review will be announced shortly.

CBS independent commission:

James Carville
Walter Cronkite
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Joe Klein
Eleanor Clift

What? Maureen Dowd doesn't make the cut?

Ah dammit, I knew I forgot one. Forgot Kristof, too.

Scott McClellan on FOX -"Orchestrated attack by the Kerry campaign and DNC...CBS should apologize publicly to the President"

(Mumbled off camera...then bend over and kiss their partisan asses goodbye... heh....in fact double heh )

RNC independent commission:

Zell Miller

That sure pegged my bullshit meter. It reminded me of the famous apology scene from "Patton". Unless CBS and Dan Rather are in Nevada where prostitution is legal, they need to be arrested for whoring themselves out to the left wing.

"I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically" - does that mean he still feels the "thrust" of them was true?

"I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers." He made them. "That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question." - I guess he answered my question in the next sentence. Now I feel "thrusted". I need to go and take a shower.

Hmphh. How will Rather handle Burkett? Ive got good money that the forging of the documents will be the smallest part of the interview. If Rather lends even a hint of sympathy or credence to Burkett for 'hiding the identity of his source' you will witness the final credibility meltdown. You dont lie to hide a source, and if your source lies to you you burn him, you dont make excuses for him which I bet Rather tries to do.

I will be surprised if there aren't basically semi leading questions leading to a semi plausible irresponsible mess but its true explanation.

This is the biggest non-apology I have ever seen. Notice how CBS still hasn't said that the documents are forged- only that they have been mislead about their origins. You know that the lefties are probably holding out that these are real.

I want to hear the word FORGERY from CBS.

Marty wrote: "You know that the lefties are probably holding out that these are real."

Only a few of the most extreme lefty blogs I've been reading are still holding out that the documents might still be real. The most common line is that CBS screwed up badly, but that there was a lot to question about Bush's National Guard service before the memos came out that is still valid. "Framing a guilty man," is one way I've heard it put. They admit that the documents are fake and what CBS did was wrong and heads should roll for it, but they feel that doesn't mean there aren't still legitmate questions about Bush's service. I don't buy this line myself. As far as I can tell President Bush served honorably in the Guard; the attacks on his service don't seem to me to amount to much. Although to be honest, I haven't researched the story carefully enough to be sure either way because I just don't care about it. George Bush has been President for over three years. That's what he should be running on, and that's what Kerry should be challenging him on.

--Rick Taylor