Dan Rather(sug. by Eschew Obfuscation)

Dan Rather is definitely not one of America's enemies. I don't believe he hates America, nor has he ever. (And it would be absurd to think so.) But the fact remains that Rather is a biased, unprofessional, contemptious egomaniac (especially against conservatives) who could not and cannot admit his mistakes when he makes them (and he made them repeatedly). Thankfully, he was replaced by Bob Schieffer who brought respectability back to the CBS Evening News

Eventhough they contradict eachother, both Mr. Political and gmanod are correct, in part. Dan rather didn't set up a conspiracy, but did want the documents to be true as gmanod said, but he niether made up the documents. Somebody did, but not him. He was just the reporter. Haven't you ever heard the proverb, don't shoot the messanger

I don't believe that Rather set up a conspiracy to frame Bush using forged documents. But I do believe that Rather desperatly wanted to believe them and thus was not as careful in checking for the authenticity of them. And gmanod, calling someone a metrosexual is not as severe as using forged documents, that would most likely lose the leader of the free world his job, and broadcasting them to millions of viewers. Furthermore, are you saying that because Cameron screwed up, what Rather did was okay?

This is the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever read! It seems that no reviewer thus far is reacting to more than just emotional cues provided by right-wingers like Hannity or Limbaugh. Is anyone looking at this in context or even content? Dan Rather didn't produce the piece, he's just the news anchor! While he does have a broader role in determining the content of his broadcasts he picks between pieces that have been investigated by his subordinates. As an objective journalist he does have to have certain standards, no doubt, but I don't understand why there is such a strong inclination to hold him and him alone responsible for the mistakes. Everyone is reading into it that he knew before hand that the documents are false and that he has a pro-Kerry perogative. Where is THAT proof coming from? Those that fault the man should at least not act so immediately hypocritical. Furthermore, the content of the story was something that has been gone over before, he wasn't creating a controversy ... Read more

Dan Rather has always been my least favorite major news anchor, and I like him even less because of his foolish arrogance over a document for which he should have been more skeptical. Still, I couldn't agree more with Magellan's perspective on this. Anyone remember Colin Powell presenting phony evidence on WMDs to the UN? Which is worse? CBS deserves their share of blame, but it is silly to pretend they are the only news network who has rushed to report stories that contain flimsy research. Furthermore, election issues should focus on the effectiveness of our government, not the effectiveness of the media.

Enemy of the US? That's absurd. You guys take partisan grandstanding to a new level. At the worst, he's a lousy newscaster for presenting a story without doing the research first. And that's a hell of a lot more benign than starting a war without doing the research first, don't you think?

Those of us who revere the rule of law, consider this guy's efforts to influence the presidential election of 2004, tantamount to criminal activity. He didn't broadcast forged documents, he broadcast falsified federal records, with the clear intention of getting John Kerry elected, even though John Kerry doesn't seem to want that himself, judging by the level of thoughtful, determined, intellectual effort he is putting forth. It isn't up to Dan Rather to smear his opponent for him. What if these documents weren't such childishly obvious fabrications? It's 40 days from the election!