Guest: Bob Kohn, Marvin Kalb, Neal Boortz, Ed Schultz, Byron York, Bianca Jagger
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There‘s a lot of talk about how some in the world don‘t appreciate America. Well, I can assure you that those who have been helped by our military appreciate America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Boy, it‘s hard to believe that reading the headlines, because tonight‘s top headline, Indonesia to the United States:
Drop dead. But the “Real Deal” is this. You take our money, you get our troops.
Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, where no passport is required and only common sense is allowed.
American soldiers risked their lives helping tsunami victims, only to have Indonesia tell us, give us your cash and get lost.
And a report out today that Hillary Clinton may be gearing up for her presidential run. I will tell you how she can win.
And CBS fires four, but Rather remains. Tonight, why the network should dump Dan. And we are going to ask if the mainstream media‘s monopoly is finally at an end.
ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
SCARBOROUGH: Do you remember the old Steve Miller song “Take The Money and Run”? Well, the vice president of Indonesia does, because, tonight, he is saying, give us your money and get out. Sorry, it doesn‘t work that way. It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
Now, for weeks, we have been hearing whines worldwide from do-gooders who say America is not doing enough to alleviate suffering in Indonesia. And for weeks, American taxpayers have gladly followed the president‘s lead in his efforts to send millions of dollars in logistical support to that embattled land.
But, today, we heard word that Indonesia‘s vice president wanted our troops out sooner, rather than later. Now, immediately, talking heads started gibbering about how the United States had earned Indonesia‘s suspicions because of its shabby treatment toward other Muslim countries. What a joke. In the 1990s, when I was in Congress, the United States got involved in a three-sided war that went back to the 14th century to help Muslims in Bosnia.
And a few years later, U.S. troops supported the efforts of Muslims in Kosovo, giving those Muslims and some terror groups control of the land that Christians had inhabited for over 1,000 years. That land was in dispute, but, again, the United States sided with Muslims. Then U.S. soldiers died liberating Afghans from the cruel grip of the Taliban. And now they are over there dying, ensuring the first free elections in the history of Iraq, an election that Iraqis strongly support, despite what you may have read in your local paper.
So, let‘s get this straight. American soldiers put their lives on the line for Muslims in Bosnia, for Muslims in Kosovo, for Muslims in Afghanistan, for Muslims in Iraq, and now for Muslims in Indonesia, and we are the ones who should be viewed with suspicion? I don‘t get it, but I do know this. Taxpayers are getting their generosity thrown back into their face by an ungrateful country and liberal elites from New York to Berlin who still bash American soldiers, when the only thing they are guilty of doing is exporting home and freedom to a dying world.
And that is tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan joins us, as well as longtime human rights advocate Bianca Jagger.
Put Buchanan, yesterday, the Indonesian vice president said he wants the U.S. military out of this country by March 26. He says three months are enough. In fact, the sooner the better. The foreign troops are no longer needed.
Pat, U.S. taxpayers give and give and give and we are treated like crap. What should we do?
PAT BUCHANAN, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think what we ought to do, if they tell our military they don‘t want us there, I think we have got to leave, Joe.
Look, what‘s going on there is, the American troops are heroes. They‘re coming ashore. They‘re helping out. They brought in water. They bring in food. They bring in medical supplies. The choppers are flying overhead. The people there in Aceh Province love them. That‘s the problem with Jakarta and the Indonesian military, which has been trying to put down a rebellion there for 30 years.
What the Indonesia military fears, and rightly, I think, is that these people are first going to say, the Americans are the ones that saved us, not the Indonesia military. And, secondly, the longer we stay there, the more possibility there is that sort of a Kurdistan will arise, where—like, where under Saddam Hussein, he wasn‘t able to go there because there were Americans in there and American aid coming in.
SCARBOROUGH: So you are basically saying that they are afraid that the United States presence, the United States money, the United States troop support may actually improve the standard of living so much that they may not want their own government around?
BUCHANAN: Exactly. It‘s the American military that is the problem for them, because, first, the American military image is improving dramatically. Mouth to mouth over there, everybody knows who has gone in there. We are aiding them. We are friendly. They probably love us, as they have in all these places in the world where Americans show up to help out.
But that‘s a real problem for Indonesia, because they are losing that province. And rather than lose it, I think they want American military out. But I do think this, Joe. Nationalism is a much more powerful force than multilateralism in the world, and I think what we ought to do is, we‘ll tell them, look, you want our military out, we are going to go. But we‘ll tell you this. We are not running aid through a corrupt U.N. We are not running it through a corrupt regime in Jakarta.
If we are going to give aid for reconstruction, which is what comes down the road, our people are going to have to oversee it.
SCARBOROUGH: Exactly. You know what? You want our money, we are going to be there, not to take your country over, but to make sure that your corrupt regime doesn‘t spend it the wrong way.
I want to give the latest numbers for Indonesia. Nearly 80,000 are confirmed dead, and more than 130,000 are missing or suspected dead.
Bianca Jagger, why should American taxpayers allow their money to go to a land where there‘s nobody to make sure that it‘s being spent to help those people so badly affected by the tsunami?
BIANCA JAGGER, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE: Well, let me answer a few of the issues that Pat raised.
One is, I think the State Department spokesperson didn‘t regard the statement by the vice president of Indonesia as you have portrayed in your program. I think that they said...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. That‘s what the State Department said.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on.
I haven‘t heard an apology from the vice president. I haven‘t heard an apology from the president of Indonesia. I haven‘t heard an apology from anybody in Indonesia. I personally don‘t care what the American State Department says. They didn‘t make the comment. They weren‘t the ones saying they were going to evict the United States. Isn‘t it time for this vice president to step forward and apologize to the United States and to our taxpayers?
JAGGER: Well, let me answer some of the questions that you raised.
SCARBOROUGH: Answer that one first.
JAGGER: I think that President Bush put it very clearly when he said that it was very important for the U.S. to be there. It‘s important for the United States to be regarded and to be thanked for the role that they are playing in Indonesia.
I think that he understood the response that the United States in the beginning was too slow and too little, and that it is important now that they stay there. I don‘t think that the president is looking for a confrontation with the government of Indonesia and that what we need to do is to be able to help them in whatever way we can, as well as, for example, the World Bank, the IMF, they have asked for a moratorium on the foreign debt.
And I think that, instead of just having a moratorium, what we should do is that the World Bank and the IMF should condone the debt in order to help the region that is going to be in a very dark economic situation from now on.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, so, Pat Buchanan, we are to forgive their debt. We are to give them billions of dollars. We are supposed to leave. We are told by our State Department, oh, wait, he didn‘t mean that. And yet, I haven‘t heard the vice president come out and apologize.
I haven‘t heard the president of Indonesia come out and apologize. I haven‘t heard a single low-level Indonesian diplomatic coming out and apologizing. So, again, I am saying, if they want our money, then they are going to get our troops.
And if they don‘t—I am saying to oversee the distribution of this aid. Listen, I don‘t even—I don‘t trust the federal government spending money in Kansas, let alone Indonesia, without people looking over their shoulders.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Well, here, look, I think, Joe, by three months‘ time, what is called the relief part of the effort, cleaning up the bodies, frankly, burying them, taking care of the people, making sure that no disease has spread there, providing them with food, providing them with medical help, making sure no epidemics have broken out, that‘s pretty much done, I think, in three months.
I don‘t mind the American military leaving, but I do agree with you 100 percent. Every single American dollar that is spent in there, whether it‘s private giving or taxpayer giving, is overseen by Americans, not the sticky-fingered crowd up at the U.N. that did the oil-for-food program, and not the Indonesian regime.
Now, as for Bianca‘s statement, forgiveness of debt by the World Bank and IMF, is another way of saying American taxpayers will pay off those debts. Now, if we are going to do something like that on behalf of Indonesia, we come in with our national interest and say, here is what we would like if we are going to do this. All I ask is that we respect their nationalism, but we be tough-minded.
They don‘t have any moral claim on the tax dollars of the American people, other than our generosity in times of trouble.
SCARBOROUGH: Exactly.
(CROSSTALK)
JAGGER: Pat, may I answer what you just said? I think that it is very important that we...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. We are going to be playing—we are going to hear President Bush at the Pentagon today, and then we will go to Ms. Jagger.
Let‘s listen to the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: I‘ve got to tell you, our military is making a significant difference in providing relief and aid and help and compassion for those who have suffered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: OK, Ms. Jagger, we will give you the final word.
JAGGER: Yes. Sure.
SCARBOROUGH: Go. Respond.
JAGGER: Oh.
Well, I think that the president is absolutely right. I mean—and what I would say in response to what Pat was saying is that aid and/or intervention in those countries has to be regarded in a different way. We can‘t just be imposing our views in every country. That is why the reputation of the United States is suffering.
It is time that we have a different approach, a more multilateral approach. And I would like to defend the United Nations, I think the United Nations is doing a superb job in the 11 countries. They just got 10 more helicopters. And we should not always be bashing and attacking the U.N. We need the U.N., and the U.N. is a very important organization that deals with humanitarian disaster.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thanks so much.
BUCHANAN: If the U.N. didn‘t exist, nobody would invent it right now, I will tell you. I think its days are numbered.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. I think so, too.
Pat Buchanan, thanks for being with us. Bianca Jagger, we appreciate it.
Now, coming up next, she says she is raising money for another Senate campaign, but some say Hillary Clinton is actually gearing up for a run at the White House in 2008. My money is on it.
And then, he oversaw a story that ruined the reputation of CBS. Four others have been fired, but somehow Dan Rather survived. Why? We are going to try to answer that question in just a little bit, so don‘t go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: When SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns, I am going to tell you how Hillary Rodham Clinton can win the presidency in 2008. You‘re not going to want to miss that one.
We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: I have been saying for some time that Senator Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrats‘ nominee in 2008. Right now, she‘s already gearing up to be president.
Here with the story is Byron York of “The National Review.”
Byron York, thanks so much for being with us.
I read your article this morning. Doesn‘t surprise me a bit. It sounds like Hillary Clinton is already sending out fund-raising letters that can position to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Tell us about it.
BYRON YORK, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, “THE NATIONAL REVIEW”: Well, that‘s exactly right.
She has sent out a big national fund-raising appeal. Now, ostensibly, it‘s to raise money for her reelection race to the Senate from New York in 2006. But, if you read the fund-raising letter, it covers mostly national issues. It‘s all about the economic and it‘s about health care. It doesn‘t really mention New York very much. It talks about the Republican attack machine that has demonized her and tries to distract her from her work.
It almost reads like an appeal back from the scandal days of the Clinton administration on that score. So, it‘s a very nationally oriented fund-raising appeal and not one really that seems directed toward somebody who is running specifically and only for senator from New York.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Byron, I have been involved in a lot of campaigns. I‘ve run campaigns, been involved in statewide campaigns in Florida and Oregon and other states. And you are exactly right. I read this fund-raising letter after seeing your piece. It is a national appeal for a national office.
This is what she says: “The Republican attack machine is out to distract me from my work in the Senate with politically motivated attacks that have no basis in fact.” And then she asks for a great deal of money.
The Democrats understand that she is the 800-pound gorilla in the room, don‘t they? There really is no other candidate for 2008, regardless of what John Kerry may tell “Newsweek,” if Hillary decides to run.
YORK: Sure, not right now, not with that name recognition.
And, you know, Joe, I thought there was one other thing that was interesting about this fund-raising appeal, which was there was only one very, very slight mention to anything—a reference to anything about national security. She said she wanted to keep America safe, and then that was it. It was on to more health care stories.
So it gives you a clear idea of where she feels that she can make the biggest impact, and with only the slightest bow to national security issues.
SCARBOROUGH: You are exactly right, Byron.
Now, let‘s bring in—stay with us, but let‘s bring in radio talk show host Neal Boortz and also radio talk show host Ed Schultz.
Neal, you have been following Hillary Clinton‘s career for some time. There‘s no doubt in my mind she is actually moving to the center on national issues. She is moving to the center on national defense. This lady is gearing up for a run in 2008. Wild horses couldn‘t drag her away, could they?
NEAL BOORTZ, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, she has chosen a couple of careful issues that she can move to the center or even to the right on and keep her basic leftist, Democratic, socialist viewpoints intact.
Not only have I been following her for years. I have known her for years. I first encountered her on a personal level, I guess, probably about eight or 10 years ago. And I would like to say this on behalf of the talk show hosts of America, please...
SCARBOROUGH: I know what you are going to say.
BOORTZ: Please run for president. That will make 2008 the greatest year of talk radio that this nation has ever seen. I can‘t wait.
SCARBOROUGH: Gravy days, baby. Gravy days.
BOORTZ: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
SCARBOROUGH: Even in the demos.
Ed Schultz, I have been saying—now, I have been two things, Ed. The first thing I‘ve been saying is that Hillary is going to run. Second thing I‘ve been strategy, though, is, Democrats would be very wise to follow her lead. Look what she is doing on national issues. Except for one or two slip-ups, she has been behind the president in the war on terror. She has talked about a stronger defense.
And get this. And I know you are hearing this on the radio. She has actually moved to the right of the president on immigration. She is gearing up to be elected president, isn‘t she?
ED SCHULTZ, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, first of all, Joe, I don‘t think I would frame Hillary Clinton‘s campaign on a fund-raising letter. Four years is a long time.
She did go over to Afghanistan and Iraq, and she came back a year ago and said, we got a security issue. We don‘t have enough troops. She will tell it like it is. Hillary Clinton can raise money. She can motivate the base, and she is going to bring a lot of new people into the process, namely women that maybe have never voted before.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Ed, she offends a lot of people, too, though, doesn‘t she? She is the Tom DeLay of the left.
SCHULTZ: Well, I think the president from time to time has offended a few people, too. So, that‘s nothing new. She is a political live wire.
Let me tell you a story about Hillary. She was at the White House when the University of Minnesota hockey team won the national hockey championship. You know who those players wanted to meet? They wanted to meet Hillary. She is electrifying in a room with a lot of people. She is a very smart person. I really do believe that there‘s nobody more qualified on the Democratic Party now.
It‘s going to be a fun four years to a run-up.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Neal Boortz.
BOORTZ: Hey, Joe, listen, I am convinced. I throw in the towel. If the University of Minnesota hockey team wants to meet Hillary Clinton, then she is obviously the best possible choice for president.
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: Neal, now, I will tell you what. Let me do this. Let me read you what Senator Ted Kennedy, also, obviously, once a guy that ran for president.
BOORTZ: Oh, please.
SCARBOROUGH: Said about a candidate moving to the right. He said it‘s poison for the Democratic Party.
He said—quote—“We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose. As I‘ve said on other occasions, the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.”
But, Neal, you take Hillary Clinton of 1995 and juxtapose her with Hillary Clinton of 2005, there‘s no comparison. She has moved quickly to the center.
BOORTZ: Well, no, she is an absolutely brilliant woman with a complete disdain for the people of the United States. Her whole life is dedicated, dedicated to the maximization of her personal political power.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Does that mean she hates Americans?
BOORTZ: She will lie. She will do whatever she has to do to get there, and she is very, very good at it.
SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait. You say she has disdain for Americans just because she...
BOORTZ: Oh, yes.
SCARBOROUGH: I mean, if you are saying that just because is—somebody wants to be president of the United States, they have disdain for America.
BOORTZ: No, no, no. Joe...
SCARBOROUGH: I mean, a lot of Republicans fit that bill, too.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. Let Neal respond. And then we‘ll get to you, Ed.
BOORTZ: You just—you go on, you go back through the entire Hillary Clinton history, back to when she was the wife of the attorney general of Arkansas. You read about the statements and her attitude and her demeanor when she was surrounded by the common folk of Arkansas.
This woman holds most of the population of this country in absolute disdain. They are there for one purpose, and that is to provide her with political power.
SCARBOROUGH: But, Ed Schultz, the Minnesota hockey team likes her.
BOORTZ: Well, there you go. They wanted to high-stick her.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Listen, the point I am trying to make here, Joe—and you guys are—really, basically what this show is doing...
SCARBOROUGH: Make your point.
SCHULTZ: ... right now is defending Hillary Clinton‘s letter, when she says there are people out there like you guys who are going to talk about her like this.
The fact is, is that she can turn people‘s opinions. And she has no disdain for the American people. How in the world can you come up with something like that, Neal?
BOORTZ: Easy. Easy.
SCHULTZ: That‘s the kind of argument we hear against Hillary.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Let me bring in Byron for a second.
Byron, I think—I think, again, Hillary Clinton—again, obviously, the smartest mind in the Democratic Party right now. I am not knocking her around. I am saying that she is making all the right moves. This is the question, though. If she moves to the center on the military, if she moves to the center on the health care, if she becomes a more moderate candidate, we know the Democrats will still embrace her, because, like Ed says, she electrifies the Democratic base.
But can she get any independents, any crossover Republicans, or she is forever tainted with Hillary-care?
YORK: Well, there are a couple of things. One, it is true that she is doing a lot of things to kind of move to the center. But don‘t forget, she is doing things to keep the base happy.
For example, she was one of the very few senators who took part and spoke in the kind of misbegotten Democratic protest last week in the Senate of the Ohio election results. Now, as far as 2008 is concerned, clearly, Democratic strategists are going to look at the states that John Kerry won in 2004 and say, can Hillary Clinton win in all of those places?
SCARBOROUGH: Absolutely.
YORK: And then they are going to look at the states of George W.
Bush, saying, what could she pick off from there?
She would be an ideal candidate if we did not, for example, have an Electoral College and candidates could run up with the score where they‘re strong, she being strong on the West Coast and in the Northeast. But if you look at the electoral map, unless conditions change—and, of course, they could—it looks like a very, very tough road for her.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, it‘s hard to see her picking up Texas.
Byron, Ed, Neal, thanks so much for being with us.
BOORTZ: And hi to my buddy Ed.
SCARBOROUGH: All right.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: We are going to be talking a lot more about this over the next four years.
And make sure you read Byron‘s article on “National Review” online.
Now, Dan Rather is stepping down from the anchor chair, but he keeps his “60 Minutes” gig. With four others at CBS getting the axe, why was the managing editor spared?
We are going to debate that right after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: Dan Rather said he was sorry, but he is still standing by an erroneous story. so, why does he get to keep his job, while they fire the staffers? That‘s next.
But first, here‘s what you need to know this quarter hour.
(NEWS BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS: The failure of CBS News to do just that, to properly, fully scrutinize the documents and their source led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so. It was a mistake. CBS News deeply regrets it. Also, I want to say personally and directly, I‘m sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Now, because of that mistake, CBS has fired four of its staffers, and the network wants to move on. But the question some are asking today is, why fire staffers and leave the managing editor in place? And why should Dan Rather continue to be “60 Minutes”‘ top correspondent?
With us now tonight is Marvin Kalb. He‘s of course, a former CBS reporter and he‘s now senior fellow at the Shorenstein Center.
Mr. Kalb, great honor to have you here with us tonight.
MARVIN KALB, FORMER NETWORK NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Thank you, Joe.
Good to be with you.
SCARBOROUGH: We greatly appreciate it.
Now, there are people, including myself, that say, in this instance, Dan Rather ran a story based on false documents. He misled his viewers, according to the report, the next night to cover it up. And he still has his job. Do you think that‘s good journalism on the part of CBS News? Should he keep his job?
KALB: Well, there are two issues here, Joe. One, is it good journalism? And the answer is no? The story on September 8 was bad journalism.
Should he keep his job is a broader issue, and I think that he should,
and let me tell you why. I think he should because everybody is entitled -
· I think, Joe, you probably have never made a mistake. But I know...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I make a lot of them.
(LAUGHTER)
KALB: I know that I have made a lot of them.
And I think that Dan has made one bad error in a career that has dated back almost 50 years. He is a very accomplished reporter. He has done a lot of first-rate stories. And it seems to me that, on the basis of this, he goofed. But that‘s it. That‘s it.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, look at this, though. You say, have I made mistakes? I certainly have. And I can think of two mistakes I‘ve made since having this job. And I apologized the next night for both of them, because I knew I screwed up.
But look at these—you say he goofed. Look at what the report said, the CBS report. He failed to authenticate the document. He lied on September 8‘s program, saying the document was authenticated. He failed to check background sources, failure to check background source of the source. Failure to interview other Guardsmen.
And then they go on and they say, really, what may be the worst part of this was the cover-up afterwards. And I want to read you what CBS said on September 10, two days after this story aired. And chaos, of course, as you know, had already erupted: “The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts, but by sources familiar with their content. Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News, nor is one planned.”
So, that is not true, first of all. And, secondly, it sounds like they were circling the wagon. Why wouldn‘t they have had an internal investigation?
KALB: Well, I mean, they were circling the wagons, clearly.
I think there was an internal investigation that was launched, perhaps not formally in the way in which you mean it, almost immediately. But there was a cover-up. And I think that anyone old enough as I am to think back to the Nixon times and the Watergate scandal, you know that a cover-up is the worst possible thing that anybody can do.
SCARBOROUGH: That‘s the irony of it, is, journalists like Dan Rather, who really cut his teeth on Watergate, seeing that it wasn‘t the crime so much as the cover-up that really brought down the Nixon White House.
KALB: Yes, well, Dan was not the one who brought down the Nixon White House. “The Washington Post” had a more direct role in that.
But, Joe, one of the key things that we are not discussing right now is, what was the story about? There were always two issues. How did CBS cover the story of whether or not George W. Bush had received preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard? That story is still there.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
KALB: The question—seriously, the question is, how did CBS cover it? And the answer to that is simple. Badly.
But the issue is still there. And one of these days, people are going to resolve that. I don‘t know—I am not in active journalism anymore, so I am not the one who is going to do it.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Marvin Kalb, thanks so much for being with us tonight.
KALB: Thank you, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: We greatly appreciate it.
KALB: Thank you.
SCARBOROUGH: And we greatly, greatly respect the work you have done over many years.
KALB: Thank you, sir.
SCARBOROUGH: But I will tell you, what really bothers me the most is the fact, again, they fire the staffers. They keep the guy that is in charge.
Now, we have got an online poll. If you think Dan Rather should be fired, go ahead and vote, Joe.MSNBC.com. If you think he should stay, Joe.MSNBC.com. Cast your vote.
With me now is “Newsweek”‘s Howard Fineman. We have MSNBC analyst Flavia Colgan.
Howard, I want to go to you first. And, again, I want to touch on this point, that you have got a managing editor. It would be one thing if he were just the host. He is the managing editor. That means he is in charge of what goes on the air. How does he stay and some poor schmuck, who has only held the job six days, and three others get fired?
HOWARD FINEMAN, NBC CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
Well, I know a lot of people inside CBS are asking that, because they resent the fact that the fellow you talk about, Mr. Howard, is out.
SCARBOROUGH: And he is not a schmuck, by the way. But, just, he certainly was...
(CROSSTALK)
FINEMAN: No. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
SCARBOROUGH: Exactly.
FINEMAN: And Dan Rather is still there.
To me, the big question, one of the biggest questions is the way he may have—and I think the report indicates he did—abuse his position as anchorman and managing editor to basically defend and stonewall that story for 10 days. I mean, he accused—in one of the early broadcasts, he accused any critics of the piece, of the veracity of the piece, of having sort of political motives, of sort of being big wild pundits, or political people out with a political agenda to get the report and get CBS.
That was the same kind of behavior that, a generation ago, Richard Nixon was using to try to deflect questions that Dan Rather was asking. And I think that was an abuse of his privileges as managing editor and anchor of that show.
SCARBOROUGH: The parallels uncanny. Now...
FINEMAN: Really amazing.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, Van Gordon Sauter, he‘s of course the former president of CBS News, wrote this in today‘s “L.A. Times.”
“I have great affection for CBS News, but I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. “
Howard, this debate of bias goes on. There are a lot of people that said, oh, this had nothing to do with bias. There‘s no liberal bias. Marvin Kalb said that before, no liberal bias. This is just about chasing the story. There are those of us that respectfully disagree. Take us inside of newsrooms. Is there a liberal bias?
FINEMAN: Well, here‘s my take on it, in a nutshell.
I think that, a generation ago, in Vietnam and Watergate, a lot of the mainstream press ended up taking in many ways a courageous, but an opposition position to what turned out to be a Republican administration. I don‘t think it was intentional, necessarily, but that earthquake of those times I think set up a wave that we are still seeing the effects of now.
And I think there are a lot of people in Texas, and I think Mary Mapes may well have been one of them, who saw their mission as investigating George W. Bush, carrying on that tradition that went back almost a generation. And I think they felt they didn‘t really fully investigate him when he was running for president. They didn‘t get the story about the National Guard, if there was one back then, and they were really on a mission to get that story.
I can‘t think of any other explanation than some kind of personal mission for the unbelievable sloppiness of CBS in this case. I can‘t think of any other explanation. The thing sort of speaks for itself in this case. I don‘t say that happily, believe me, because I think all of our credibility is hurt.
SCARBOROUGH: And I will tell you what. It was a five-year mission also by Ms. Mapes.
Let‘s bring in Flavia Colgan.
Flavia, you have obviously worked in politics. You‘ve been very involved in media. And you know how things work. In politics, if a politician screws up, he or she is the one that loses their job, not some lowly staffer. Isn‘t it wrong for Dan Rather to keep his job, while they are firing four of his staffers underneath?
FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, I agree with Marvin on two counts. I do think that the stonewalling was the most appalling part of this story.
But you have to look at the breadth of someone‘s experience, of his career. And this was shoddy reporting. There‘s no question. I don‘t think it was based on a liberal bias. I think it‘s part of the rush downward in the media consolidated world where journalism is about ratings and profit. And the old timers who used to sort of take pride in the news organizations losing money, that is simply not the case. People want to get the story first.
SCARBOROUGH: So, do you fire him or not? Do you fire him or not?
COLGAN: No, I would not fire Dan Rather. I haven‘t read the entire report, but I have read the first 100 pages or so, and I don‘t think there‘s any evidence in there that Dan Rather did this maliciously in any way.
I think that he tried to follow up with the producers. He had a producer who just come to him with the promised land, with the Abu Ghraib, and he has to depend on the people around him. And he gets briefed on these things. And he had a colleague of Killian coming on, saying that this guy was saying the same things contemporaneously with what the memo said.
And Marvin made another great point, which is that the thrust of this story, with Ben Barnes on there, was strong, with the other colleague of Killian, with Barnes, his secretary. There is so much other evidence that says that the thrust of the story, there was something there.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you what. Flavia, you need to go into the law, because I have read the report.
And, Howard, help me out here.
FINEMAN: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: There are so many damning facts in this report. I don‘t know how the guy survives and keeps his job.
FINEMAN: Well, the thing is, I would like to, again, say that I think he abused his power by basically running a defense campaign on the news show. He was defending that story to the hilt with information that, again, repeatedly was shaky, if not unsubstantiated, and the report says almost knowingly a lie.
(CROSSTALK)
FINEMAN: Close to it.
SCARBOROUGH: Actually, this is what it says. And it says it on page four, talking about the most serious defects in the reporting and the production of the September 8 segment: “The false statement, the false statement”—talk about damning—“The false statement in the September 8 segment said an expert had authenticated the Killian documents.” It‘s right there. They‘re calling him a liar on the air.
FINEMAN: Yes, but the big problem is to look at the succeeding broadcasts, where basically they were running a defense campaign. They were using time on their own air to run essentially what was a defense campaign, when they should have shut down, gone inside, found out what really happened and come back with the truth of their own reporting. They didn‘t do that.
SCARBOROUGH: You are exactly right.
Howard Fineman, they released a statement two days later saying they were going to have no internal investigation. Andy Heyward circled the wagons, let Dan Rather get away with it, and that‘s why I think they should both be gone.
Hey, Howard Fineman, as always, thank you so much for being with us.
We greatly appreciate it.
And, Flavia, stick around. We are going to be talking more about this coming up next in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: Are we seeing the end of the mainstream media and the rise of alternative press, and is the mainstream media liberal?
Still with me, MSNBC analyst Flavia Colgan. And joining us is Bob Kohn. He‘s author of “Journalistic Fraud.”
Bob, I saw your interview with Marvin Kalb yesterday, quite a shouting match. I am hearing from Marvin and a lot of people that there‘s just no bias in the mainstream media. What have I got wrong?
BOB KOHN, AUTHOR, “JOURNALISTIC FRAUD”: I just—well, you know, their insiders have said there‘s bias in the mainstream media.
You have had Bernard Goldberg on your show all the time, and he talks about the bubble that these people live in. I am just a consumer of the news. And I don‘t know these people. I don‘t know what is going through their head. But, forensically, if you read like “The New York Times” or you watch CBS News and you watch what happened on this Rather-gate affair, I don‘t think you can come to any other conclusion than the mainstream media is simply injecting their political beliefs into the news.
SCARBOROUGH: Flavia Colgan, Evan Thomas, obviously one of “Newsweek”‘s most esteemed writers, said that the overwhelming majority of the media supported John Kerry. Every poll that has been taken, the Pew polls that have been taken, overwhelming majority of journalists are liberal.
Don‘t you think that a lot of these people are hurting their reputation when they come out and say, bias, what bias?
COLGAN: Well, I think that there is a bias sometimes, but I think there‘s a bias on the Republican side, too.
I mean, when the Judith Millers of the world were impersonating stenographers, taking the Bush line hook, everything they gave them and just printing it, were these people liberal biased? When “60 Minutes” went after Bob Kerrey, Democratic senator, a couple years ago in a complete hit piece, showing him to be a war criminal, with only one person saying as such, was that liberal bias?
I think it goes both ways. And I think it‘s too simplistic to say that. I think more of it has to do with the profits-driven, ratings-driven corporate culture of media right now, which is only being exacerbated by the 24-hour news cycle on the Internet. People have to get stories fast. And they don‘t care if they get them right.
SCARBOROUGH: And shows like this.
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: Bob Kohn, what‘s your response?
KOHN: She is accusing Judith Miller of being pro-Bush? I don‘t understand where that‘s coming from.
I think if you took the preponderance of the news on the mainstream media, on CBS, it is slanted toward the liberal issues. And even the public editor of “The New York Times,” OK, works under the payroll of “The New York Times,” writes a piece that of course “The New York Times” is a liberal newspaper. They were cheerleading in their news pages, not just the editorial pages, but cheerleading for same-sex marriages.
I mean, come on. This is not a Republican saying this. This is a Democrat saying that. Just come off it, admit it. Let‘s eliminate the hypocrisy.
SCARBOROUGH: And let me just say, “The New York Times”‘ public editor coming out and saying that, I think that is very positive. Hopefully, CBS is going to have, again, their standards person who is going to be straightforward.
But, Flavia...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Go ahead.
KOHN: You know, Joe, Daniel Okrent has done a fantastic job at “The New York Times.”
SCARBOROUGH: He really has.
KOHN: He really has. But you know that CBS News did not appoint an ombudsman.
SCARBOROUGH: That‘s a problem.
KOHN: They appointed a standards editor, a standards editor who the producers and the reporters can go to, but there‘s no one that the public can go to at CBS.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Somebody from the inside. And that‘s a problem. CBS has somebody on the inside. “The New York Times” went outside. That makes a difference.
Now, Flavia, how can you say—you look at Dan Rather going after Nixon in press conference.
(CROSSTALK)
COLGAN: Was he not a criminal? Did he not have to be pardoned?
SCARBOROUGH: You look at Dan Rather going after George Bush Sr.
COLGAN: And he was right on Iran-Contra.
SCARBOROUGH: You see him going after George W. Bush.
Well, he was right to liberals. If you are a left-winger and you have got that point of view, then he was right. For the rest of us, we‘ve got some problems.
(CROSSTALK)
COLGAN: ... not say, end up saying that Bush was in all those meetings? Was that not true? Was not Nixon a criminal who had to be pardoned by the next president?
SCARBOROUGH: Did you not see the interview with Dan Rather with George Bush Sr.?
(CROSSTALK)
COLGAN: I did see. And I also saw...
SCARBOROUGH: Do you think that was appropriate?
COLGAN: ... mainstream media lacerating Clinton, going after Gore, story after story that he invented the Internet. I saw them putting swift boat veterans—“New York Times” reported that the day after the ad dropped, when the vast majority of that stuff in those ads were discredited by documentary evidence.
SCARBOROUGH: Actually...
COLGAN: By the Naval record, by eyewitness accounts. And people just played that over and over again, along with the deputy secretary‘s remarks...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Actually, you know what, though, Flavia? They did—
“The New York Times” did not respond the next day. In fact, “The New York Times,” CBS News, ABC News, every news outlet, as far as I know, refused to respond until John Kerry himself responded.
COLGAN: No.
SCARBOROUGH: And that‘s the problem.
COLGAN: No, you are talking about before the ads, when they started their—talking about the swift boats back in May.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: We will debate after the break here, OK?
Stick around.
Bob Kohn, we appreciate you being with us.
Flavia, stay around. I am not done fighting you yet.
We‘ll be right back in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: Georgia schools put stickers on science books to warn kids that evolution is only a theory. But the Supreme Court says it‘s time to rip them off. That‘s tomorrow night in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
But stay tuned for more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCARBOROUGH: Here‘s the point of the night. Dan Rather let this forged document on the air. Dan Rather then tried to cover it up. Dan Rather kept his job. Four others got fired. That‘s not fair, is it?
COLGAN: Well, again, you have to look at the breadth of Dan Rather‘s job. Is Judith Miller still in her job? Did George Tenet not get the Medal of Freedom? Did he say there was a slam-dunk?
SCARBOROUGH: Nixon opened China.
COLGAN: WMD, slam-dunk.
SCARBOROUGH: Nixon opened China. He made a mistake with Watergate.
So he should have kept his job, right?
(CROSSTALK)
COLGAN: With the powers of the FBI, the powers of the CIA, they fell for forged documents.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Nixon helped end the war in Vietnam. Should he have kept his job? He just made one mistake. Let‘s look at the breadth of his career.
(CROSSTALK)
COLGAN: You really think that it‘s analogous? Is that what you are comparing this to?
SCARBOROUGH: I certainly do.
You know why I think it is? Because I think that Dan Rather used his position of power, just like Richard Nixon did, as Howard Fineman said, to cover up. And that was the sin. That was the sin that is worth the firing. That‘s why he should be gone and Andy Heyward should be gone, not these four others.
COLGAN: And how about—should anyone else be fired? Should the people that went with the Drudge story about Kerry having an affair that had no basis, should they be fired? Should the people who impersonated stenographers...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: If CBS ran it, yes, they should be fired. Did CBS run that story? Did any mainstream media...
(CROSSTALK)
COLGAN: You are going to put Sinclair out of business.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Did Sinclair run the story about John Kerry‘s alleged affair?
COLGAN: I am sure—I don‘t want to be quoted.
SCARBOROUGH: You‘re sure?
COLGAN: No.
I am just saying, a lot of stories go on the air that are not checked and rechecked the way that they should be. And the hypocrisy of this is that this is some sort of unprecedented scandal, while we have the president of the United States spending my tax dollars...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: We‘re talking about media, not the president. Fight about the president tomorrow night.
COLGAN: Of course, because you want to talk about—that‘s what Republicans do. You stonewall and you talk about the issues you want.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I stonewall? You know what you are doing? You are changing the subject.
Flavia, this is starting to sound like “Crossfire.” And “Crossfire” is getting canceled, so we better leave it there.
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: We‘ll see you, Flavia. Thanks for your time.
Now, before we go, NBC Universal is teaming up with the Red Cross to do its part for the tsunami relief effort. This Saturday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, they‘re hosting a telethon that will feature Madonna, Sheryl Crow, Stevie Wonder, Lenny Kravitz, Matt Damon, George Clooney. I‘m telling you, I loved “Ocean‘s Twelve” as much as “Ocean‘s Eleven.” Halle Berry—better not go there—and so many stars, I can‘t even name them.
Now, that‘s going to be Saturday at 8:00. And you can it watch right here on MSNBC.
We will see you tomorrow night on the anti-“Crossfire.” I‘m Joe Scarborough. Good night. Should I say that with...
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
