Tim Cook Reveals What Privacy Advocacy Really Is

[SteelCrysis]

Rather was lying, and has a history of lying: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3859076/boar...f_=tt_bd_4

Anyone viewing the authoritative Thornburgh-Boccardi report online (easily obtained via Google) and working through its 220+ pages can hardly deny The Truth about Rather and Mapes. Their report was fraudulent, and failed to meet even the lowest, most basic standards for responsible journalism.

Now, as is the case with so many liberal media celebrities (recall Doris Kearns Goodwin's rehabilitation a few years after she was caught plagiarizing -- she blamed it on her assistants and paid off the person whose writing she appropriated), Rather and Mapes are going to try to rewrite history and rehabilitate themselves.

In the midst of a swelling musical score and convincing acting (remember, it is acting, to a script), the naive person might actually believe Redford's account of RatherGate.

The more critical-minded person might start by asking the following question: If Rather would commit such a massive lie in 2004, would there be any other occasions on which he also lied publicly?

The answer is, of course, "Yes." It is all there on the internet. Simply Google "Mark Lane exposes Dan Rather" and view a detailed article showing that Dan has been lying, in public, in crucial circumstances, from very early in his career. Shortly after the Kennedy assassination, Dan Rather became one of the very few people to view the Zapruder film, which was then not available to the general public.

Dan appeared on CBS TV to give a detailed description of what he saw on the film. Dan described Kennedy's head as moving "violently forward" when the crucial head shot hit Kennedy at frame 313. Of course, as any assassination buff knows, the head moved violently backward! Mark Lane synchronized audio of Dan's commentary with the movie of the head shot and showed it in the 1970's to audiences of college students. He repeated the sequence several times, and the audience first gasped, then started laughing at Rather's outrageous effrontery.

So there was Rather, looking grave, serious, and sad, staring in the camera and telling a lie! Note, this is what Lyndon Johnson wanted Rather to say, because it supported the notion that Kennedy had been shot from behind. Rather had known Johnson since 1955, and Johnson had cultivated him carefully.

Now, future analysis showed that, although Kennedy's head DID move violently backward, and Rather was lying, this was not necessarily inconsistent with a head shot from behind. But Rather didn't know that at the time.

At the time, I had considered Rather a hero, a courageous journalist, based on the way he'd gone after Nixon after Watergate. But after attending Lane's presentation, I saw Rather in a different light.

Dan Rather -- getting things wrong since 1963 (at least).

Dan has an "explanation" for this too. Tell me, did this event or Dan's explanation make it into "Truth"? If Redford and Mapes are so interested in "Truth", why wouldn't they present this rather powerful evidence about the reliability of Rather?