Why Dan Rather's Lawsuit Makes No Sense

Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS is all about redemption. But has he even read it? In many ways, the 32-page complaint reflects worse on the former anchor than the Memogate saga itself ever did.

Riddled with logical inconsistencies, the suit -- available in its entirety here -- is evidence of a man desperate to have it both ways. As anchor and managing editor of CBS Evening News for 24 years, he claims credit for the broadcast's many awards and triumphs. Yet when it comes to the disputed Air National Guard documents he featured on 60 Minutes II, he reverts to the defense that he was too busy covering Bill Clinton's heart surgery and Hurricane Frances to pay them much attention. (Rather's executive producer at the time, Josh Howard, calls that account "laughable," by the way.)

I wonder: Had the National Guard story won a Peabody, would Rather have insisted it belonged to everybody else but him?

Rather's bosses, particularly then-CBS News chief Andrew Heyward, compounded their sell-out of Rather, the suit claims, by instructing him "not to respond to the accusations of bias made against him personally, assuring Mr. Rather that CBS would defend and stand by him. Relying on these assurances, Mr. Rather complied and did not respond to attacks on his journalistic integrity."

Yet later in the complaint, we're told that CBS "significantly contributed to the barrage of bad press Mr. Rather faced" by allowing Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace and Andy Rooney to criticize Rather in public.

Got that? The network was wrong to muzzle Rather, and it was wrong not to muzzle his colleagues.

Then there's the issue of bias. The people who accuse Rather of harboring a liberal bias are crazed right-wingers, but Rather himself is allowed to accuse former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh (one of two appointees to the panel that investigated the disputed report) of bias, because he's a Republican. How does Rather explain the inconvenient fact that a panel supposedly prejudiced against him found him guilty of no wrongdoing (in his account, anyway)? By once again having it both ways: The panel's composition was tainted, but its result was pure.

Lamest of all is Rather's refusal to take responsibility for taking responsibility. Of his Sept. 20, 2004 statement of regret, the suit says, "Despite his own personal feelings that no apology from him was warranted, Mr. Rather read the apology as instructed."

There's no doubt that Dan Rather was targeted for destruction by forces on the right. It may be true that CBS, protecting its own corporate interests, dispensed a punishment out of proportion to the offense. But if Rather didn't think his actions deserved a personal apology, then he, for the sake of his own integrity, should have quit rather than tendered one. This suit should have been filed three years ago or not at all.