March 04, 2005 | 00:19:08 EST
The segments in which Rather appeared break down in the following way:
- Rather's career reflections, thoughts on Iraq situation
- The document controversy.
- What's next for CBS and Rather
Almost all the Memogate stuff is in the second segment. Rather appeared visibly tense discussing Memogate and the "independent" panel's investigation. Letterman posed some interesting questions but let Dan skate on a more than a few. For now, we're also hosting a video of the chat here.
To read our take on the show or post your own, click here.
This is a rush transcript of "The Late Show with David Letterman," airing March 3, 2005.
DAVID LETTERMAN: Next week after 24
years at the helm of "CBS Evening News," first guest
will step down with the
distinction of being the anchorman longer than any other
person in network news.
Ladies and gentlemen, here's Dan Rather.
( Applause )
DAN RATHER: How are you?
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thanks.
LETTERMAN: Welcome back to the
program.
And congratulations.
How does it feel?
You're like about a week away,
is that what it is?
RATHER:
Next Wednesday will be my
press last broadcast on the "Evening News."
LETTERMAN: How does that feel
looking back now?
It all goes by like that?
RATHER:
It goes by like that.
My late father used to say, you
always have less time than you
think you, have but I've had 24
years on the evening news.
Would be take anything for it.
I feel good.
I feel great.
I'm eager to get on to the next
thing, moving into "60 Minutes."
LETTERMAN: You'll continue as a
reporter here at the network.
RATHER:
I will.
LETTERMAN: Reporting is of you,
isn't it?
It's what you were born to
really?
RATHER:
I don't know I was born to,
but from an early age that's
what I dreamed of doing.
That's my id in terms of my
professional life.
That's what I'm all about.
LETTERMAN: All around the world,
every major story in the last
quarter of a century, every
major figure, two or three
highlights come to your mind as
you look back?
RATHER:
Dave, I've been so lucky to
be as CBS News, there are an
awful lot of things.
I learned a lot covering the
civil rights movement in the
early 1960s, my day-to-day
chore.
I use that wore t cover
American men in women in
Vietnam.
The widespread criminal
conspiracy, which we now call
watergate was a terrible time
for the country, but it was a
great important story, tiananmen
square.
I've really been lucky.
I'm a report who got lucky.
LETTERMAN: You're a walking
encyclopedia of, honestly, of
the last several generations.
RATHER:
And pretty, you know, I think
back at only 33 years old, I've
covered a lot of ground.
( Laughter )
LETTERMAN: What?
What?
I think the first time when I
was younger, the first time I
really kind of got to paying
attention to you and correct me
if I'm wrong about any of these
details, it was a democratic
national convention in Chicago.
And you were roughed up,
escorted out, wrestled to the
floor, any of that ring a bell?
RATHER:
You bet.
1968, democratic convention in Chicago.
They were, if you could believe
this, they were trying to escort
a delegate, a guy with a big
delegate sign.
They were bodily escorting him
out of the hall.
LETTERMAN: The Chicago police
taking him out?
RATHER:
The security.
These were plain clothesed
security people.
A lilt vague as to who they
were.
They were orders delegates were
not to leave their seats except
with permission.
This guy took the view, hey, I'm
a delegate from georgia.
I'll move around whenever I
want.
They s no.
They tried to hustle him out.
I tried find out what was going
on.
Somebody decked me.
It was an interesting time, to
say the least.
LETTERMAN: Now, they must have
known that you were not a
delegate, that you were, in
fact, a journalist, a credited
journalist covering the event.
How did you get hit?
Was it intentional?
RATHER:
Well, yes, it definitely was
intentional.
( Laughter )
It's a fair question.
They were trying, the whole
thing was about control.
The late mayor daly had promised Lyndon Johnson if he brought the Democratic National Convention
in Chicago he would guarantee
control inside the hall.
LETTERMAN: A time of great
upheath
RATHER:
Absolutely.
The Vietnam war divided the
country.
Daly was trying to deliver on
his promise to have control in
the convention.
When they tried to hustle this
delegate out, they didn't want
any reporter, it wasn't about
me, it seldom is, it's always
about the story, they didn't
want any reporter talking to the
delegate before they got him out
and gave him the business.
When you're a floor reporter,
you could only be on the floor.
I know it seems incredible to
people now, but they had this
kind of control.
They were trying to get him to a
gate, take him off the floor
where I couldn't follow him.
Any reporter worthy of the name
comes in and say, what's going
on here.
Basically they said, none of
your damn business, whom, put
you on the deck and get you out
of there
LETTERMAN: I wonder today if
something similar happened would
there be litigation?
Would the reporter who was
fouled or fronted retaliate
legally.
RATHER: Good question.
Might.
I don't know in heavy number,
but now I think the question is
whether reporters as a whole
have reached the point that
they're sos do l if not
obsequious that they weigh a
lot, and I don't except myself
in this criticism, if you do
something like that, are you
ever going to get access to
people in power?
I'd like to think there are
reporters now around who would
press in, try to get the story,
but it's something people could
ask themselves about.
LETTERMAN: The people who
actually roughed you up, was
anything ever said to them?
Were they reprimanded or
suspended?
RATHER:
The secret service got into
it and found the people they
thought did it.
And said, we we know who did it.
If you want to pursue this, and
it was the next day or the day
after.
I said, it's behind me.
Let's forget about that and go
on and cover the convention.
Also things had reached not just
a tumultuous but very dangerous
state outside the hall in what's
called the battle of Chicago.
LETTERMAN: Another battleground
recently, three weeks ago you
war in Iraq, is that correct?
RATHER: I was.
I've been in Iraq I citythy 12
times since 9/11.
LETTERMAN: What's it look like
now, the most recent time?
How do things there after the
election?
I hear two stories.
People say you don't hear the
good, positive developments in
the newspaper.
You don't read them or hear them
on the thiewz, but things are
much stronger than they were.
The other side is what we hear
all the time, it's a hell fest,
a [ No audio ] Fire.
Paul: Can you say that?
LETTERMAN: I don't know if you
can say that.
<>RATHER: Dave, you won't
mind me if I quote you directly
with that description.
I think a lot of people feel
that way with good reason.
One extreme end of the scale it
is.
Everything is beautiful
you remember that saying: (singing) Everything is beautiful in
it's own way
People want you to believe that
about Iraq.
People at the other end want you
to believe everything is going
to hell in a hack.
Unqueson the recent
elections give hope.
I think it was a significant
event.
Whether it was a tipg point or
not, it's a little early to say,
but certainly it gives hope that
the vision of a democratic, free
Iraq not breaking into civil war
has a better chance after those
election than they had before.
That is true.
On the other hand, there is a
long way to go because security
is a key point.
And I spent time with the
marines.
I can't tell you, david, how
proud you would be of them.
I know you have been to Iraq.
You should though, you're big in
Iraq, man, with the troops.
LETTERMAN: Nice to be big
somewhere.
( Applause )
RATHER: No they know you've been
there.
Here's the thing: I think
security's number one, but,
dave, if you want to know how
things are going in Iraq, this
is my own wandering reporter's
opinion, watch electric power.
Every iraqI home I've been into,
they say, look, security is
number one, we don't understand
why the electricity is not
consistent and dependable.
And if electricity to most homes
in Iraq becomes regular,
consistent, then you will know
that the situation's going
pretty well.
If it doesn't get better and
fairly quickly on the
electricity front, I know how
odd this may strike some people,
but there is down where people
live, electricity, sewage,
garbage collection, those are
the sort of things I think will
determine whether we are
successful, quote/unquote, as
the president now hopes we will
be.
LETTERMAN: Those are day-to-day
observation, application of
stability.
Exactly.
So watch the electric power
trend.
If it's up, working well, things
may turn out pretty good.
If not, look out.
LETTERMAN: We'll be right back
here with Dan Rather, everybody.
( Applause )
Second segment
RATHER: Dave, I mean it, you were
really big in Iraq.
LETTERMAN: Thank you. Dan Rather is here, ladies and
gentlemen, poppy Montgomery.
Some time before the election on
"60 Minutes Wednesday" is what
it's called now, there was the
report that CBS had in their
hands documents, some sort of
affidavits that indicated that
during his service in the
national guard, George bush was
given preferential treatment.
Is that so far what happened in
RATHER:
That's true.
We had other people, including
the one-time speaker of the
texas house saying he intervened
to get special treatment, but
basically that's true.
LETTERMAN: Now, just taking that
story in and of itself, would
that have been a damaging story?
Was it a damaging story?
Is it... would it have caused
people to change their votes?
How big a story would that have
been if it had been verified?
RATHER:
I don't know because we never
reached that point.
We put it on the air with what
we thought was credibility.
We had things besides the
documents, but for whatever
reason, rightly or wrongly, the
focus became the documents.
We were not able to awe threat
kate the documents as thoroughly
as I think we should have, given
a little more time perhaps we
could have.
My experience with election is
no one thing turns it around.
I think that in this case, the
case of this particular
election, whatever was going to
happen, let me say below the
surface, that the American
people were going to be very
reluctant to turn out a
president as commander-in-chief
in wartime.
Until and unless it was
demonstrated to them that the
war was unwinnable, which was
not the case.
Bottom line, I think George bush
was destined to be reelected
whatever happened in august and
September.
LETTERMAN: Regarding that
particular story, it was you and
everybody else at CBS News felt
it was important to get that
story on the air, right?
We did.
LETTERMAN: Yeah.
But isn't it true that in all
walks of life some people are
going to... I mean, in college,
for example, I was given passing
grades that I could never have
driven to, you know what I'm
saying?
RATHER: I do.
I made some of those grades.
LETTERMAN: That's preferential
treatment.
If somebody wanted to do a story
about that, okay, I guess that
did happen.
So I'm trying to separate the
two events.
How big a story would that have
been, and you're saying probably
not to the extent of affecting
the election.
Now, the credibility, the
veracity of documents do comes
into question and then what
happens?
RATHER:
Well, a panel was appointed
by CBS News to...
LETTERMAN: An independent panel?
RATHER:
An independent panel.
LETTERMAN: Is this a big thing
for a network news organization
to have endured?
RATHER:
I think the answer to that is
yes, yes.
Richard Thornburgh, former
attorney general who was in the
Nixon administration, says the
bushes are good friends of his,
both president one and two bush.
He headed the panel.
They took the better part of
four months, spent several
million dollars, some people say
as much as $5 million, and came
out with a report which I've
read, thought about, absorbed
it, take it seriously and move
on and carry it with me in my
work.
Among the things, they concluded
a lot of things, many of them
not complementary about my work.
They concluded that whatever
happened and whatever you
thought about it, it was not
motivated by political bias and
they said that, although they
had four months and millions of
dollars, they could not
demonstrate the documents were
not authentic, that they were
forgeries.
They said they couldn't make
that conclusion.
They also encouraged CBS News to
rededicate itself to aggressive
investigative reporting when
warranted and not let this
discourage them from doing so.
That's a summary, a short
summary.
This panel report is big enough,
you know, if you want to read
it, it's I don't know, big
enough to make a door stop.
LETTERMAN: I need a door stop.
( Laughter )
so let me go back to two points.
They said, one, it was not
motivated by political bias?
RATHER:
That's right.
LETTERMAN: So CBS News and
yourself and others cleared of
that, and that seemed to be a
great point of criticism, did it
not, that there was political
bias here, that...
RATHER:
People had their own
political motivations and
agendas, and some people who
didn't have that, who were
asking the question.
That's one reason the panel was
appointed.
That was one of their
conclusions.
LETTERMAN: That charge has been
erased by the fact-finding
committee?
That was their conclusion.
LETTERMAN: Did not exist.
That evaporated.
Secondly, they could not prove
the documents were false.
They could not prove they were
true and accurate, but they also
could not prove they were false
RATHER:
That's correct.
LETTERMAN: That's a push right
there.
RATHER:
Some people would not regard
it, but you've summarized it
correctly.
They had a lot of other
findings.
Those were among the findings.
LETTERMAN: So with that in mind,
and it seems to me like those
were certainly the fire points
of this investigation, why then
were there people let go?
Why was it recommended that
people be fired?
RATHER:
Because Les Moonves, who
heads CBS, read the panel
report.
He had some tough decision to
make.
And he said that it was his
conclusion that on the basis of
the panel's report and finding
that four people, and I hope it
won't be lost sight of that
these are four people who worked
hard for CBS News and Les
Moonves acknowledged that, and
in some cases they helped us
break one of the most important
store risk-- stories in reeth
years, the abu ghraib story, but
it was his judgment he needed to
do this for the good of the
organization, for good of CBS News, and that's a decision he
made.
LETTERMAN: I still don't
understand, if the committee
investigating this cleared
people of the most weighty
issues, the political motivation
did not exist and the fact we
couldn't determine documents
were fraud, why did anybody have
to lose a job?
Why isn't this one of them
racing deal, as they say in
racing?
( Laughter )
RATHER:
The committee didn't say it
was one of those issues.
First of all, we've summarized
the committee findings and
summarized what I think are some
of the most important, but the
panel was critical, in some case
very critical of the way the
story was handled.
Again, you know, Les Moonves had
some difficult decisions to
make.
He read the report, thought
about it.
He had it a week or eight days
ahead of time, thought about it.
He had difficult decisions to
make.
He made them.
Gave his reasons for making
them.
You come back to, well, you
know, since these were two of
the most important findings, I
think best answer, and I'm not
answering forless Les Moonves,
you have that close, endearing
relationship with him...
( Laughter )
Some of the rest of us are
somewhat more removed.
There were other findings of the
committee, of the panel on which
Les looked at it and said, I
think I need to do this.
LETTERMAN: Did you agree with
his decision?
RATHER:
Whether I agree or not
doesn't matter.
It was his decision to make.
He made 'em.
I respect that he had some tough
choices to make.
That's where I leave it.
LETTERMAN: Were you sorry these
people were let go?
Some quit, some were let go.
RATHER:
There were four.
Three were asked to resign and
one was let go at the end of her
contract.
The fact that a process, perhaps
a necessary process resulted in
four friends, colleagues, people
who give good work had to be let
go is never far far, far from my
mind.
LETTERMAN: In a situation like
this, it was so public, right or
wrong, left or right, people
early on making up their minds
about it, such a high-profile
story and such a great
journalistic institution, should
the president of CBS News have
stepped down?
Should he have stepped forward
and taken the bullet and stepped
down?
RATHER:
He's on vacation right now,
but when he gets back, you can
ask him.
( Laughter )
( applause )
LETTERMAN: Do you think all of
this has been handled fairly?
Do you think it was too much
about something that was later
disproved or that evaporated?
How do you feel about the
proceedings after the fact?
RATHER:
Dave, this is how I feel--
it's behind us.
We have to look forward.
At some point... you've had ups
and downs in your career.
You have criticisms.
Sometimes you think it's
justified and sometimes not.
At certain points you have to
say, the committee, the panel
has spoken.
The corporate leadership has
spoken.
This is how it is.
Put a period.
I take it with me and let's go
forward in the work.
That's exactly how I feel about
it.
LETTERMAN: If you take a look at
the "new york times," a few
years ago and for quite a
lengthy period of time, it
looked like that newspaper was
falling apart.
All they had left was the
classified pretty much.
( Laughter )
It was one thing after another,
guys making up stories and phony
headlines and on and on and on,
yet still I think it's regarded
as the finest newspaper in the
country.
So you do have to accept and
make changes and continue and
that's what you and the network
are doing.
RATHER:
I agree with that completely.
I want to point out something
that's unquestionably true, and
that's in the case of the
"times," somebody, a particular
somebody, had lied for a very
long time, and that lasted over
a long period of time.
In the case, whatever one thinks
of what we did or didn't do with
the story in question here,
nobody broke the law, nobody
lied.
Depending on your point of view,
it was a mistake.
Who hasn't made a mistake
somewhere along the line.
There's that difference.
I think the "times" handled
their situation very well, and I
agree with you that they're
probably the world's greatest
newspaper.
LETTERMAN: Would bit fair to say
or an easy thing to say that
maybe it was overeagerness or
zealousness after the abu ghraib
story broke to have another wig
story shortly thraf?
Is that not factor?
Is that not how network news
works?
RATHER:
Again, back to the panel's
report, they thought it was a
factor.
Again, what I think about it or
not doesn't matter.
The panel concluded that that
probably was a factor.
That's a subjective judgment in
my ways. CBS as a whole agreed with that
conclusion up to a point.
LETTERMAN: Look, Dan, if it will
help, I'll step down.
( Laughter )
RATHER:
I don't think that would
help.
Listen, you're a profit center,
pal, don't step down.
We're going to add to your
security.
LETTERMAN: Thank you.
We'll be right back with Dan Rather.
Third segment
LETTERMAN: Now, Wednesday is
your final night behind the
desk.
What will they do?
Have they made a decision?
I heard bob schieffer, the white
house correspondent is coming
in.
RATHER:
My friend bob schieffer, who
now does "face the nation" and
is our senior washington
correspondent is coming in to be
a "interim anchor" while the
powers that decid what they
want to do on at least a
semipermanent basis.
He'll take up after next
Wednesday and do it for a while.
LETTERMAN: Do you think there
will be a radical change?
RATHER: I have no idea.
LETTERMAN: What would you like
to see?
RATHER:
Les Moonves says he favors at
least thinking about a
multi-anchor.
I don't have any strong feelings
about it.
The only thing I have strong
feelings about is the quality
and core integrity of the
broadcast.
I do have confidence in Les
Moonves's leadership and those
who are making the decision.
They want t innovate.
We need to innovate.
We innovated when we brought
David letterman over.
LETTERMAN: Please.
Your friend and colleague tom
retiring at NBC, you now
retiring at CBS, does this mean
a structural change?
People have suggested, and I
guess statistically it's true,
that it's kind of getting to be
less of the place where people
get their news than it was 20
years ago.
RATHER:
We've gone through a period
in which the context of American
media has changed.
LETTERMAN: Right.
RATHER: There's been fragmentation of
the audience because the
competitive bit has gotten
larger.
You don't feel competition in
late night, but...
( laughter )
So certainly there's been some
fragmentation of the audience.
One I want to point out that my
friend tom Brokaw, and he is my
friend, somebody I respect
greatly, he wanted to retire.
I'm changing jobs.
There is a difference in that.
LETTERMAN: Okay.
RATHER:
But in terms of the evening
news, change is inevitable.
The question is what kind of
change and to what purpose.
I'm confident at CBS News, under
Les Moonves's leadership and
that of others, whatever they
finally wide up, with they'll
have a quality newscast of
integrity.
LETTERMAN: I didn't mead mean to
shove you out the door.
You will still be working as a
reporter?
RATHER:
For "60 Minutes," the two
programs.
By the way, one thing they might
try, I don't know, I'm impressed
you brought back Johnny Carson's
great stump the band.
LETTERMAN: We didn't bring it
back.
We just stole it from him.
RATHER:
I don't know.
Maybe you could have stump the
anchor at the end of the
broadcast.
LETTERMAN: There will be a
special "time" called a reporter
remembers.
The story of your career as an
anchorman and in television
news, narrated by yourself.
You will be interviewed on the
topic of yourself.
I'm sure it will be a
fascinating memoir.
And I can't thank you enough for
everything you've done for me in
your role as the anchorman here.
You made us feel right at home
when we first came over and
you've been a great friend to me
and this program and a tireless
supporter and a wonderful guest.
Thank you very much.
Good to have you here.
RATHER:
Thanks so much.
LETTERMAN: Dan Rather, ladies
and gentlemen.
| 
