CBS vs. Rather warms up … if ever there were a case there should be two losers, this is it.

From the Dow Jones Newswire: A state judge on Tuesday reinstated a fraud claim by former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather in a $70 million lawsuit against CBS Corp. (CBS). At a hearing Tuesday, New York State Supreme Court Justice Ira Gammerman ruled that Rather could file an amended complaint in the case that alleges fraud by CBS. The judge had previously thrown out the fraud claim. Rather has alleged in part that CBS violated his contract by failing to provide him enough airtime on "60 Minutes" or "60 Minutes II" after removing him as anchor of CBS Evening News in March 2005 following a controversy over a 2004 report about President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. The judge ordered the first draft of the independent panel’s report be turned over to Rather’s lawyers. The independent panel set up by CBS was made up of former Attorney General Dick Thornburg and retired AP President Louis Boccardi to make a judgment on the controversial segment. If Rather thinks this will help him, he may be mistaken. In what seemed an unusual step, the independent panel allowed CBS to review the report “for libel” before it was released to the public, hence Rather’s desire to see if CBS influenced its findings. I followed the case closely and was surprised the panel made no conclusion as to whether the documents were forgeries. The only expert typographical witness concluded emphatically they could not have been done on a typewriter from that era. I felt the panel pulled its punches, concluding only that the 60 Minutes segment should not have run and not making any conclusion on the veracity of the documents. Information concluding the documents were forgeries could damage Rather, but also come back to bite CBS for not properly vetting such incendiary charges as Rather made against a sitting President at the height of the election cycle. It’s really a moot point since no one from the Bush administration is going to sue. The case is almost two years old now and is moving with the speed of molasses. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the case can still proceed. That decision should come soon. It seems both sides are just going through the motions. The one consolation is this case is chewing up gobs of money from both sides and accomplishing very little.

Obama on courageous Iranian protestors … weak and vacillating

George Bush has been unequivocal in his support of freedom in Iran. Twice in his State of the Union addresses he spoke to the Iranian people. 

And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you. --- State of the Union address February 2, 2005

And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. --- State of the Union address, January 31, 2006

Contrast that to Barack Obama’s tepid support.

I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television…. --- Obama, June 15, 2009

I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor -- and tone of the statements that have been made -- that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching --- Obama, June 19, 2009

We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people…. --- Obama, June 20, 2009

Not exactly Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall. There are events in history when great leaders seize the moment. It was Hungary in 1956, Prague in 1968. It was Yeltsin standing atop a tank outside of the Blue House in Moscow. Obama seems more interested in keeping himself in Ahmadinejad’s good graces than standing on principle. He is letting the courageous people of Iran down. If Ahmadinejad wants to have talks with Obama, he will find a way. Criticism won’t queer the deal. It didn’t with Reagan and the Soviet leaders on arms talks. It seems Obama has established a mindset of realpolitik, accepting as legitimate any regime, no matter how brutal or corrupt. By playing up to the dictatorial leadership of Iran, he comes across as weak and vacillating.

Herschel Smith, writing in The Captain’s Journal hits the nail on the head on the misplaced mindset of the administration.

As Netanyahu was recently told by an American official, “We are going to change the world. Please, don’t interfere.” But as we are beginning to see, situations that contradict the world view don’t result in amending that world view. They simply stupefy the administration. Thus they stare in disbelief and silence as Iran goes up in flames.