Early in the segment, Kurtz played a clip of a controversial 2003 interview that Rather did with Saddam Hussein wherein the now deposed despot claimed Iraq had no WMD. Kurtz asked Rather, “Does that answer seem different to you now than it might have seemed at the time when most people did believe that Saddam had WMD?”
Rather answered:
Well, I believed it. When the president of the United States, no matter who he is or what party he belongs to, says that a situation is thus, I tend to believe it and I think most Americans tend to believe him and so when Saddam said that at the time, frankly, my thought was, he's lying. But it turns out about that at least he was telling the truth and he told more accurate assessments of the situation than we were being told by others.
Sadly, Kurtz didn’t ask Rather about all the members of Congress that stood up in October 2002 also declaring that Iraq had WMD, including many that Rather likely revered. Certainly this would have been appropriate given Kurtz's position with his first question on this subject being that “most people did believe that Saddam had WMD.” Why not press Rather on this point by specifying who those “most people” were?
Furthermore, there was no discussion about the possibility that between October 2002 and the time of Rather’s interview with the madman from Baghdad that Saddam had transferred his weapons caches to bordering nations like Syria and Jordan. This seemed like very poor interviewing skills by Kurtz to say the least, for raising this issue with a man who now believes Saddam was actually telling the truth would have evoked quite a fascinating discussion. Sadly, Kurtz missed this opportunity.
I think it is fair to say, Bill [Maher], in fact, I know it is, that Fox News operates in at least a somewhat different way that every other news organization that I know. That they have their talking points. In other words, somebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House.
Kurtz played a clip of Bill O’Reilly contesting Rather’s assertions:
Well, Mr. Rather's assertions are nonsense, untrue, seriously dopey. I've been here from the beginning and I have never seen a White House talking points and I don't know anyone else who has seen one either. I asked senior management if they have ever seen a White House talking points. No one had.
That set up an interesting exchange between Kurtz and Rather:
KURTZ: Seriously dopey, says Bill O'Reilly. How do you respond, Dan Rather?
RATHER: Well, first of all, Bill has invited me to be on his program and I intend to be on the program. I stand by what I said on the Bill Maher program. Not only is it true but it is widely known to be true and I do know it to be true.
Bill has a different view. He is entitled to that view but they can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand, day after day, week after week, take the administration's point of view and use their talking points and then turn around, particularly when the president's own popularity begins to slide some, try to disassociate themselves with that.
I want to make it very clear, Howard, as I did on the Bill Maher program, I have great respect for Roger Ailes and what he has done with Fox News and I think this, contrary to what some people think, I think that the addition of Fox News to the American media landscape has in the main and overall probably been a good thing and I said words to that effect in the program. But I stand by what I said.
Kurtz then pressed Rather: “But are you saying that Fox News often takes the same line as the Bush administration or are you saying that pieces of paper are literally faxed over or e-mailed over ...”
Rather answered:
I don't know about pieces of paper being faxed over. I certainly am saying the first, that they often take the same line, and exactly the same line in exactly the same words. That I said that I know they use talking points from the White House and by the way, I did say that's not only not an indictable offense but it's journalism practiced in a certain way. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, quite honestly.
Hmmm. If only Kurtz would have pressed him further on this. After all, in November, Rather said “we know that they get talking points from the White House.” Yet, now he says, “I don't know about pieces of paper being faxed over. I certainly am saying the first, that they often take the same line, and exactly the same line in exactly the same words.” That’s a significant difference from receiving talking points that Kurtz could have easily pressed Rather on, but chose not to.
What follows is a full transcript of this segment.
KURTZ: Dan Rather, welcome.
RATHER: Glad to be with you, Howard, always.
KURTZ: The situation in Iraq is widely considered a mess. Tony Snow told me on this program last week that the media have a failure narrative when it comes to Iraq and Laura Bush said on MSNBC the other day that the reason people think things are so bad there is because of media drumbeat that focuses excessively on the violence. What do you make of those arguments?
RATHER: Well, not very much, Howard.
With respect, this is an old story, that when things go bad, blame the media. We have not been perfect and I include myself in that assessment but it turns out that the media's assessment and what it's communicated with the American public has been far more accurate about the situation on the ground, the real situation on the battlefield than has been the pronouncements out of Washington or that matter from the military itself.
It is a common occurrence to say the problems are not the problems, the people who call attention to the problems are the problem and by any reasonably objective analysis by any decent, attending (ph) person, that doesn't hold up.
I do emphasize that there have been some very good things done by the American mission in Iraq and I do agree that to a certain point that they have been underreported. But overall and in the main I come back to the central point which is the press has done a much better job of informing people what the war is, what it really is, as opposed to what some people in power want us to think it is.
KURTZ: With the obvious limitations that it is difficult for correspondents to get around the country because of the dangers there.
Now you were the last journalist to interview Saddam Hussein back in 2003 on the eve of the Iraq War. I want to play a little bit of that to remind viewers of that conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RATHER: Saddam also rejected Bush administration allegations that besides the missile delivery system, he still has weapons of mass destruction.
SADDAM HUSSEIN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF IRAQ (through translator): I think America and the world also knows that Iraq no longer has the weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Does that answer seem different to you now than it might have seemed at the time when most people did believe that Saddam had WMD?
RATHER: Well, I believed it. When the president of the United States, no matter who he is or what party he belongs to, says that a situation is thus, I tend to believe it and I think most Americans tend to believe him and so when Saddam said that at the time, frankly, my thought was, he's lying.
But it turns out about that at least he was telling the truth and he told more accurate assessments of the situation than we were being told by others.
No misunderstanding about this, Howard. Saddam Hussein was a despot. You cannot be in his presence and not have it go through your mind, he is a stone cold killer. And his record bears that out.
But he said two things in that interview that looking back on it I wish I had paid more attention to.
Number one was he almost vehemently denied that he had weapons of mass destruction and the second was, when I said this amazing, huge American armada, the greatest military force in history is about to come down on you, what do you think of that?
And he said, look, we will absorb a tremendous initial blow. We may absorb tremendous blows after that, but as time goes on, we have our ways and you will see that it will not be easy for the Americans.
And I have thought about that many times since.
KURTZ: Haunting words. And Saddam, of course, sentenced to death, recently, by an Iraqi court.
Let's talk a little bit about your new show on HDNet. I have looked at some of these programs. I think they are very good but not necessarily strikingly different from what I see on the broadcast networks. What do you see as the biggest difference between doing a story for "Dan Rather Reports" and doing one for "60 Minutes"?
RATHER: Well, there are a lot of differences. I could go on and on. I'll try not to.
The biggest difference is that I have total, complete, absolute editorial and creative control. It's a rare journalist - I think it's unique in journalism now, but if not unique, certainly rare. So that's a big difference.
And with respect, Howard, I beg to differ with you about -- it's not too much different from what you see elsewhere. You haven't seen one hour news programs dealing with the kind of subjects that we've dealt with in prime-time. Indeed, you haven't seen very much anywhere else.
There are some exceptions. CNN occasionally, perhaps more than occasionally, does some of this kind of work.
But here's the point. That the idea of doing one subject on the problems of American fighting men and women who have actually fought the war as opposed to those who just babble on about it and the problems the families have.
You haven't seen that in prime-time anywhere.
KURTZ: So when you do a program on the growth and the influence of the Washington lobbyist, the difference here is that you have got a lot of time to explore the details and nuances as opposed to a 12 or 14 minute piece that might run on a newsmagazine show.
RATHER: Absolutely and we also don't have the encumbrances that come naturally by working for a large, international corporate global conglomerate that have their intertwined with needs - legislative needs and regulatory needs in Washington, that HDNet is owned lock, stock and barrel by Mark Cuban. He doesn't answer to stockholders and he is not, as I say, intertwined with huge regulatory and legislative needs in Washington, the same people who own most media outlets in this country, whether you're talking about GE with NBC, Viacom with CBS. Yes, they split, but it's - Disney with ABC or Time Warner with CNN or Murdoch with Fox.
These people are asking for great favors of people in power in Washington and they don't - perhaps unintendedly so, but that is anathema to the kind of play no favorites, pull no punches, hard- hitting, gutsy reporting. Particularly at length and in some depth.
KURTZ: You're not saying that you pulled your punches at CBS but that the corporate entanglements were in the back of your mind?
RATHER: That's exactly what I'm saying.
KURTZ: All right. You recently went on Bill Maher's HBO show and you had some things to say about Fox News which, not shockingly, Bill O'Reilly later took issue with. Let's play a clip from the "O'Reilly Factor" and we'll see the exchange.
RATHER: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RATHER: I think it is fair to say, Bill, in fact, I know it is, that Fox News operates in at least a somewhat different way that every other news organization that I know. That they have their talking points. In other words, somebody in the hierarchy, whether this is Roger Ailes who runs the place or not, we know that they get talking points from the White House.
BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, Mr. Rather's assertions are nonsense, untrue, seriously dopey. I've been here from the beginning and I have never seen a White House talking points and I don't know anyone else who has seen one either.
I asked senior management if they have ever seen a White House talking points. No one had.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Seriously dopey, says Bill O'Reilly. How do you respond, Dan Rather?
RATHER: Well, first of all, Bill has invited me to be on his program and I intend to be on the program. I stand by what I said on the Bill Maher program. Not only is it true but it is widely known to be true and I do know it to be true.
Bill has a different view. He is entitled to that view but they can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand, day after day, week after week, take the administration's point of view and use their talking points and then turn around, particularly when the president's own popularity begins to slide some, try to disassociate themselves with that.
I want to make it very clear, Howard, as I did on the Bill Maher program, I have great respect for Roger Ailes and what he has done with Fox News and I think this, contrary to what some people think, I think that the addition of Fox News to the American media landscape has in the main and overall probably been a good thing and I said words to that effect in the program.
But I stand by what I said.
KURTZ: But are you saying that Fox News often takes the same line as the Bush administration or are you saying that pieces of paper are literally faxed over or e-mailed over ...
RATHER: I don't know about pieces of paper being faxed over. I certainly am saying the first, that they often take the same line, and exactly the same line in exactly the same words. That I said that I know they use talking points from the White House and by the way, I did say that's not only not an indictable offense but it's journalism practiced in a certain way. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, quite honestly.
KURTZ: Mm-hmm.
RATHER: It is not the way I choose to operate and a lot of people in journalism don't but I don't see anything wrong with it.
I do think - I wouldn't say wrong, but it's unbecoming on the one hand to do it and on the other hand to say, well, we never do that.
Again, I want to be explicitly clear. Bill O'Reilly may never get White House talking points and I believe him when he says he doesn't get it. I also believe when he says he checked the top management and top management said we never see pieces of paper, whatever ...
But Howard, with our young men and women dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and getting severely wounded, with a huge deficit ballooning, with all the problems we got, it's a little hard to justify spending this much time talking about it, or for that matter having anybody else talk about it, although it's clearly their choice and it's been Bill's choice.
But I think far too much has been made out of this. Because it's not about me. It's not about Bill O'Reilly. It's about trying to get the truth to the American people.
