Dan the inept fool or rather willing accomplice

[moof]

Who is this Dan Rather some of you seem to think of as your champion against the tyranny that holds America hostage ?

Is it the same Dan Rather that was in Dallas on that November day in 1963 and never once showed any empotion for that event other than anger and disgust at the suggestion that anyone but Oswald killed Kennedy ?

the same Dan Rather that reported as requested to the CIA as his CBS bosses asked every time he returned from Vietnam on assignment during that "war" ?

The CIA where bush 1 had already been working since at least the bay of pigs and later reassured Hoover that Cubans had nothing to do with the Kennedy killing.

the same Dan Rather that stepped in and took the place of the most trusted man in America after that man had said that America could not win the war in Vietnam ?

the Dan Rather that upon the eve on the elections for bush 1, when the tag " wimp " had become attached to poppy, had an unprecedented live interview with him that allowed the "wimp “ to attack Rather and appear not to be a wimp ?

The Dan Rather that was able to interview Don Rumsfeld's old buddy Saddam Hussein on the eve of the current war when all the U.S. Government was looking for Saddam and couldn't find him ?

The Dan Rather that owns a ranch with Don Rumsfeld in Taos N.M.

The Dan Rather that took the issue of bush 2's desertion during the Vietnam war and made it so it would never come up again without the phrase " forged documents " attached to it ?

Well from here it appears that " friend " is a term better used by bush and company to describe Dan rather than those that lament what
bush's handlers have done to the people of America and the world.

Maybe he was just a gullible fool, afterall who would think the government would be willing to kill an American astronaut just to
justify a war to get rid of some leader they don't like.

[Ms. Clio]

1. Great post

Rather willing accomplice, IMO.

[Swamp Rat]

2. kick

[The_Mule]

3. Link request

Can you please post a link to more information about Rather and Rumsfield owning a ranch together?

Thanks.

[Ms. Clio]

16. See post #14 n/t

[saracat]

4. Please. The Dan rather that covered the Civil Rights Era,

the Vietnam War the story of the Kennedy Assassination, covered Iran Contra, The Gulf War, The Iraq war, and 9-121. The Dan rather who was shot at , anthrax-ed, physically attacked, beat up, and spit on? The Dan Rather who dodges bullets and carried wounded servicemen off the battlefield? The Dan Rather who stood up to Presidents and Dictators? The Dan Rather who was on the hit list of at least three Presidents? Are you referring to the Dan Rather that they used, in his own words "to make a dirty word out of liberal"? The Dan Rather who was often "too emotional" because he believed in what was "right"? Or how about the Dan Rather that was never proven wrong on the National Guard story, even after an independent investigation? Dan Rather has more "courage" and has done more to stand up to corrupt administrations than any of the anonymous posters who revile the reputation of one of America last real reporters. Dan Rather is a journalistic hero who "never backed down".It is a pity some no longer recognize what that looks like. Perhaps some deserve the media they are getting, as they seem unable to appreciate integrity in journalism or to seperate fact from fiction.

[Ms. Clio]

5. The Dan Rather who blubbered that "his President" just had to ask him

to jump, and he'd say, "How high?"

Greg Palast was right about him.

On edit: And you're just an "anonymous poster," too, and have no way of knowing what anyone else has done to fight this corrupt administration.

[saracat]

6. I am sure you haven't done what Dan Rather has, and you are right

I am an anonymous poster as well, but Dan Rather isn't. And his record speaks for itself. He isn't hiding behind an alias writing revisionist history about others. Only those who have placed themselves in the kind of danger that Rather has, in pursuit of the truth, have the ability to judge his career. Palast isn't worthy to shine Rather's shoes. The man reported from a war zone at 72. Not many would do that. This man has been beaten, anthrax-ed, spit on and added to the hit list of presidents. It is criminal for any liberal not to respect the body of his work. To do so is not to know history as it was.

[Ms. Clio]

7. You have your opinion, and I have mine

Is Operation Mockingbird a historical reference that has any signficance for you?

Keep believing in the myths and fairytales, if it pleases you.


(typo edit)

[saracat]

8. And the Pope also controls the media! Walter Cronkite is the anti-Christ!

Reality time out! That is difference between real journalism and "yellow' journalism, or a scandal sheet. But then some people believe what they read about two headed aliens, Elvis lives, Kennedy lives, and the government is conducting secret operations on aliens in area 51! Okey dokey!

[Ms. Clio]

9. Well, that was an exceptionally labored attempt at humor

How old are you? Not old enough to remember the Church hearings, I take it?

Gosh, you act as if I attacked your grandpa--settle down, Beavis.

On edit:

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." - CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)

[saracat]

10. Well , the reply was equally labored. I remember the hearings.

My opinion of the journalism still stands.

[Ms. Clio]

11. Well, bully for you. Your opinion is as valid as mine. n/t

[saracat]

15. I must say I got a giggle out of Operation Mockingbird , as several

longtime family friends were on some of those lists! I remember back to my parents talking about that when it came out and what a good laugh everyone had. It was hilarious! Thanks for the memories!:) Good night!

[Ms. Clio]

18. Yes, the American Prospect magazine found the Church hearings

a real laugh riot:

"It's important today to recall that the object of much of the Church committee's investigation were the abuses the CIA and other intelligence agencies inflicted on Americans here at home. They included the Huston Plan, a proposal to have the agencies infiltrate and disrupt student and other dissenting organizations; Operation HT Lingual, in which the CIA had for 20 years been opening the mail that Americans (including Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey) had sent to the Soviet bloc; and other operations that kept files, ran wiretaps, and performed medical experiments on U.S. citizens."

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=5963


But I'm always happy to put a smile on the face of a fellow DUer.

[saracat]

19. That has nothing to do with "Mockingbird " and the lists of people

other than both are alleged to be connected to the CIA. The Church Committee doesn't specify any "Operation Mockingbird" Nite.

[Ms. Clio]

22. That is incorrect--the Church hearings are where the information

about Operation Mockingbird originated.

"Details of Operation Mockingbird was revealed as a result of the Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) in 1975. According to Church, the cost of misinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year. Carl Bernstein claimed that over a 25 year period over 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

[saracat]

23. The Secret History of the CIA?

That isn't the Church Committee. That is a conspiracy theorist talking about the Hearing. I read the hearing results.

[Ms. Clio]

24. Look, the information about Operation Mockingbird came from

testimony by CIA agents before the committee. This is a historical fact. Why is it I keep posting links, and you just keep repeating yourself?

[saracat]

25. That was a conspiracy site. Not the committee report.

[Ms. Clio]

26. It is not a "conspiracy site"--it is an education resource

that covers many many topics. Try typing in: www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk and you will see that it covers a huge list of historical topics.

You were flat out wrong about Operation Mockingbird and the Church committee, and now you want to call this a conspiracy site. Now that's funny.

[Ms. Clio]

28. PS: It's obvious that in your fevered rush

to label this a "conspiracy site" that you didn't even scroll down the page, and see all the books that have been written about this, as well as the 1977 Rolling Stone article by that infamous conspiracy theorist, Carl Bernstein.

[saracat]

29. So far , I didn't see anything that confirms anything, just many links

wacko sites like"what really happened " . I agree your site has other stuff, but it also has some wacko stuff on it!. The Committee Report itself makes no mention of this. I cannot authenticate it. Sorry. I saw the reference to the Rolling Stone ,article and there is supposed to be a NYtimes article somewhere. They talk about CIA linked journalists, however they don't and even Bernstein is not quoted, referencing "Mockingbird " that I have seen. I still see no reference to this in the report and I definitely see no reference to Rather .
Now just the fact that something might be wacko doesn't mean it can't be true. And just the fact that it is printed somewhere or is someone's opinion doesn't make it true either.I was sufficiently interested to look up a few things but find nothing substantive. The primary source doesn't confirm this.

[Ms. Clio]

31. What other "wacko stuff" is at THIS link:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

Scrolling down, we find:

1) Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities (April, 1976)

The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.

Approximately 50 of the assets are individual American journalists or employees of US media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are "accredited" by US media organizations and thereby affected by the new prohibitions on the use of accredited newsmen. The remaining individuals are non-accredited freelance contributors and media representatives abroad, and thus are not affected by the new CIA prohibition.

More than a dozen United States news organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover.

(snip)

The Committee is concerned that the use of American :journalists and media organizations for clandestine operations is a threat to the integrity of the press. All American journalists, whether accredited to a United States news organization or just a stringer, may be suspects when any are engaged in covert activities.

Okay, moving on we have books by:

Alex Constantine, Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA (2000)

Evan Thomas, The Very Best Men: The Early Years of the CIA (1995)

Mary Louise, Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation (2003)

David Guyatt, Subverting the Media (2004)

Finally, we have a link to Carl Bernstein's article:

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

How America’s Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Media%20Readings/Berstein%20-%20CIA%20and%20the%20Media.htm

(Note that this is an .edu website, too)

And you still haven't explained how http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/

is a "conspiracy site"--because it's certainly the first one I've ever seen that is interested in the Textile Industry, Scotland, Wales, The English Civil War, etc. etc. etc. It is, in fact, a bonafide history resource for both children and teachers.

[LittleClarkie]

33. Where is Dan Rather's name in connection to Mockingbird

and why does this source contradict itself in regard to why Murrow went after McCarthy? Thank you for any info.

[Ms. Clio]

35. Sorry, I really didn't follow the Murrow/McCarthy thread

Please see my answer below.

[saracat]

49. All of this, including Bernstein's report, relates to foreign affairs.

and was along time ago. Again, so what and doesn't have anything to do with Rather. And I don't have a problem with them working with journalists. I am sure they thought they were serving their country., and just maybe they were!Even Bernstein doesn't on a cursory glance condemn the journalists for this. You just are pissed that Rather supported the war. I know he supported Afghanistan. I suppose he supported IWAR but I don't know , and I don't care .Many patriotic Americans supported the war.I wasn't one of them. That was my choice. His might have been different. He was still one of the best.

[Ms. Clio]

51. Whatever, you keep moving the goal posts

Now it's all just "history" and I'm anti-American. Damn, if that ain't typical.

Again we come back to what I said before--you have your opinion, and I have mine.

[LittleClarkie]

32. Do you have any links to the Church committee transcripts themselves

Do they mention any journalists by name? Is Dan Rather mentioned in the Church investigation?

[Ms. Clio]

36. Unfortunately, I don't think the report is available online

Too bad, I wish it was.

I don't know if he is mentioned or not. But according to Carl Bernstein:

The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception . . . .

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Pres International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune.

By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Media%20Readings/Berstein%20-%20CIA%20and%20the%20Media.htm

[saracat]

38. Here is the link to the report. No Mockingbird or Rather.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~ncoic/cia_info.htm

[LittleClarkie]

40. I think I smell a smear. What say you saracat?

Do you smell a smear too?

[Ms. Clio]

44. And I smell desperation--that is not the official report

Nice try, though.

[LittleClarkie]

46. Desperation for what

Pray tell? There has been no proof that we need to refute.

[Ms. Clio]

50. Then somebody is trying awfully hard

That was not the official report--funny how you keep trying to change the subject, though.

[saracat]

54. Absolutely.

[Ms. Clio]

42. That is not the offical report

Why would you call it that?

It is a document written by Civil Intelligence Association
Defense Oversight Group.

[LittleClarkie]

30. I don't see Dan Rather's name on the link you have there

After digging around, I found some bio info, but nothing to connect him to Mockingbird. Do you have some other link that connects Rather to Mockingbird?

I noted what the link DID say on Murrow, however. It seems to imply that he too was part of Mockingbird.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

But when I clicked on Murrow's name (taking me to HIS bio info) the explanation for why he went after McCarthy was different, and infinitely more reasonable than the entry under Mockingbird that has him going after McCarthy as part of Mockingbird.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmurrow.htm

More than a bit contradictory. Which is it, I wonder, a sense of morality, or the CIA, tha sent Murrow after McCarthy. I do prefer the former, myself.

Reading about McCarthy was interesting though. I can't imagine the mental gymnastics that Ann Coutier has to go through to worship the man.

I wonder why the IF Stone entry is edited so strangely. All the publication names are cut out.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAstoneIF.htm

Who puts out this site, if I may ask?

Oh, I see, never mind:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/author.htm

Nice of him to produce a site like this, but I don't know why I should accept his word over any other aspiring historian. Seems an ordinary fellow, really, with some background in the field.

So, the only thing I'm still missing is a list of jouralists for Mockingbird, I guess. Without that, how am I to know that Dan Rather was involved.

[Ms. Clio]

34. Aspiring historian who has written 20 books?

Good grief, at what point does a person become a historian, then?

From his site:

Over the last twenty years I have written several history books including Ghandi (1987), The Vietnam War (1988), Race Relations in the United States (1988), Slavery: An Illustrated History of Black Resistance (1988), Hitler (1988), Stalin (1987), The Roman Empire (1991), Making of the United Kingdom (1992), Expansion, Trade
and Industry (1992), The Medieval Village (1996), The Norman Invasion (1996), etc.

In September, 1997 I established the Spartacus Educational website and over the last three years I have produced online material for the Electronic Telegraph, the European Virtual School and the Guardian's educational website, Learn."


I don't know that Dan Rather is or was part of these CIA ops--and nobody else knows that he wasn't. However, I don't trust him, and I have historical precedents for that distrust. This conversation has really gotten way off base because it became a bizarre attempt to deny the existence of Operation Mockingbird at all, when the only reason the U.S. public ever learned about any of these things was because of direct testimony by CIA agents in front of the Church committee.

[LittleClarkie]

37. I thought that the point was to connect it with Rather

not to deny its existance.

What other proofs do you have that Dan Rather is untrustworthy aside from this nonexistant connection to Operation Mockingbird?

And this person needs to fix his Murrow links, as they contradict each other, undermining his credibility.

[Ms. Clio]

41. No, you are mischaracterizing what happened

I posted my personal opinion that Rather is not a journalistic superhero, and got a lot of personal attacks, including a slam of my knowledge of history. So I brought up a historical fact, Operation Mockingbird, and then the conversation devolved into whether it did or did not exist, and whether it did or did not form part of the Church hearings.

I don't find him trustworthy, and that's my opinion.

As for the website owner, he is linking to other peoples' work--you can perform your own critical evaluations of those texts, and take or leave them, as you please.

[LittleClarkie]

45. But you dirided Saracat for her belief in myths

then intimated that Mockingbird was some sort of proof for your opinion, which it isn't.

And the OP is nothing but flamebait really. Rather more than merely stating that Rather isn't a superhero. I can agree that he's not a god, but he's a hell of alot better than most of the "journalists" around today. Or was, bless him.

[Ms. Clio]

48. She started out attacking me

With snide remarks about anonymous posters, etc. You seem to have a very one-sided view of this whole conversation, and you deliberately mischaracterized the author of the spartacus website, too.

It is my belief that Rather is not trustworthy and that he may very well be part of CIA operations. That is my right to believe that, and I will post that if I choose.

[LittleClarkie]

39. Why did you bring up this reference when it has not provable link

to Dan Rather. And then berate the poster for her "myths and fairy tales" when you had just made a reference that had no provable link to the man in question?

[Ms. Clio]

43. Uh, CBS is linked with Dan Rather

Duh.

[LittleClarkie]

47. BFD

And?

[Ms. Clio]

53. Oh. Little Clarkie

Between the two of you, you have yet to explain why I cannot hold whatever opinion about Dan Rather that I choose.

And I never liked Clark, either.



:P

[saracat]

58. You may have whatever opinion you wish. I do not choose to agree. I choose

to defend someone who is the subject of a vicious unwarrented attack.and that is my opinion.

[Ms. Clio]

60. And I choose to defend the right of the OP to post his opinion

Was it a vicious unwarranted attack to say that Rather owns a ranch with Rumsfeld?

That's what this board is for. You say what you think, and I say what I think.

[saracat]

61. It is perfectly obvious from the allegations made of being

everything to from an "inept fool" to some kind of CIA tool , Rather is being attacked.

[Ms. Clio]

63. Sorry, you lost me on that one

What post am I supposed to be linking to?

Guess what--people are allowed to attack Dan Rather. It's not against the law. You are allowed to respond to those attacks, if you choose.

In the end, you will believe what you want to believe, and so will I.

[LittleClarkie]

62. Who is it who said we are all entitled to our own opinions

but not our own facts.

Go to bed Saracat.

Or are you up early instead?

I should go to bed.

Except I'm kinda hyped up now.

Wonder why.

[saracat]

52. Well, guess what? I am linked to CBS as well,

So I must be part of this too? And I am not joking. I am asking a serious question.

[Ms. Clio]

57. I don't know, and at this point, I don't care

If you're a journalist, you weren't very credible about calling that a link to the official report.

[LittleClarkie]

64. GASP!

Say hi to Agent Mike, won't you?

;)

[saracat]

67. Sure thing!

Right after I give my report to Rumsfeld! Gotta run, Scotty on line one! We're gonna reframe that Italian story!:)

[Ms. Clio]

69. Just as long as you don't provide deliberately misleading information

Like calling something a link to an official report, when simply scrolling to the bottom of the page would have indicated who authored it.

[Griffy]

12. umm.. no not that Dan Rather, I dont know that man...

Perhaps you have some facts wrong.. like show me how Rather owns a ranch with Rummy... or purposely used "forged" documents to destroy a true story he was revealing!..

[Ms. Clio]

14. Or perhaps you have some facts wrong

Is Time magazine a good enough source for you?

Co-Owns New Mexico Ranch with Dan Rather, among others: You would think, especially after Saddam's capture, that Rumsfeld could pack it in, go out on top and settle down in that ranch in Taos, N.M., that he co-owns with, among others, Dan Rather, TIME reports.

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,565993,00.html

[saracat]

20. It is an investment with several other people. So what?

[Ms. Clio]

21. Um, the guy said he didn't believe it was true at all

Obviously it is.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

[Speed8098]

55. You're obviously on a quest.

You sound like someone who wasn't even alive when John F.Kennedy was shot.

I'm not even sure you were around to witness the riots in Chicago in 1968.

While he has made some mistakes along the way, what human hasn't?

You are obviously on a quest to smear Dan Rather.

Why don't you tell us the true reason why.

Goodnight Gracie.

[LittleClarkie]

56. Thank you!

Indeed.

[Ms. Clio]

59. Wow, so interesting, in fact I was 2 years old when JFK was shot

Yes, I'm on a quest--I'm being paid by the KGB. Or maybe it's Al-Qaeda.

This is fun.

[LittleClarkie]

65. I was 2 months

Ah, I remember it well, sucking on me mum's teet and looking at the telly.

[Ms. Clio]

66. It's teat

Old folks like me know how to spell.

[LittleClarkie]

68. So do I when I've actually been to bed at some point in the evening

Come to think of it... nighty night....

[countryjake]

70. Isn't it well known that the media was in the pocket of the CIA...

concerning the Kennedy Assassination? Surely you must have heard complaints in your years, of deliberate "avoidance" of the subject & yes, even Dan Rather, & certainly, CBS, moreso than any other news agency. It's not any conspiracy theory; it's just observant news watchers, listening to the tone of reports.

I don't dislike Dan Rather anymore than any other "system hack", honestly I think he was scared to buck the trend & wasn't willing to sacrifice his career to uphold honest journalism. Who knows, maybe somebody held a gun to his back when he sluffed off the King assassination story, after King's family had finally gotten some truth on the bastards who killed him. Hey, it's okay to take the establishment with a grain of salt, all of them; cogs in a wheel, I always say.

[Griffy]

71. ACTUALLY.. I said "PROVE IT" basically..

and that is NOT enough facts to mean jack with rummy.. I thought you had something.. but I see you have mostly bluster and a single line in an article, that tells of nothing, perhaps they use the same investment company. Do some research and look into the "ranch". I own stock, so it could be said I co-own companies with many people. The twisting of language is easy, and in a time when the bushies turned to undermine the media, its common. I'm sure you dint have the whole story, neither do I, the difference is you've closed your mind to anything that goes against your opinion, and I ask questions to try to clear up the picture. Rather was in real combat... he watched people get shot and die... he was in the south in the 60's and saw the pain and anguish of the blacks.. and so much more we can only imagine. I dont blame your prejudices, we are all very angry, and we all wanted the bush story to be exposed, but I believe he was set up, and sure, he shouldn't have fallen for it, but hes human.

[2diagnosis]

13. Half of Americans Believe What Dan Rather Says

by Joseph Carroll
March 09, 2005

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -

-A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that Americans rate Rather's believability lower than that of fellow anchormen Peter Jennings of ABC or Brian Williams of NBC. Only a slight majority of Americans say they believe what Rather says -- the lowest score Rather has received on this measure since the question was first asked in 1985.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci=15199

Rather's Believability Reaches 20-Year Low

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Feb. 25-27, asked Americans to rate the believability of the three nightly network news anchormen on a scale from 1 ("you believe almost nothing of what they say") to 4 ("you can believe all or most of what the person says").

---Either way he lost credibility.

[saracat]

17. Must be the blue states!

And the people who voted for Kerry!

[2diagnosis]

27. you're right.

“If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners....Tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we’re pulling for her.”
— To President Clinton, via satellite, at a May 27, 1993 CBS affiliates meeting, referencing his new CBS Evening News co-anchor Connie Chung.

[tinonedown]

72. He was a good reporter

And a fair one. Sometimes that meant giving the benefit of doubt to right wing crooks that don't deserve it. Don't assume he was a patsy.

[moof]

73. A short follow - up

A. Trust no one in the media.
B. Dan Rather was in on the ground floor on one of the biggest unsolved murders in American history.
There are many people that think he knows much more about that day in Dallas than he has let on.
Perhaps he was/is afraid, after all, many people in Dallas that day
ended up dying premature deaths.
Then there are the two people that for years claimed they couldn't even remember where they were the day Kennedy was killed, turns out they were in Dallas, also turns out they got to be pResidents, heck, Ford just helped interview Ruby in Dallas and he got to be a pResident too.

But enough digression, for those that like a bit of irony that is.

C. Anyone that considers Dan a hero needs to do some research on him.
For instance it seems quite likely he knows who attacked him that night in NYC and why.

D. Do some research on Walter Cronkite's removal from the CBS evening news and how determined the management was to replace him with someone that would be more of a team player.

Just for kicks read up a bit on Klaus Fuchs,
Kim Philby, or the more contemporary Robert Hanssen.
Rather, it would seem is not in their class,
but they were all trusted beyond any doubt.