Michael Moore, Dan Rather. Is there really any difference between them? The animosity each has towards the Bush administration is well documented. Moore’s manipulation of the facts to create his fictional “documentary”, Fahrenheit 9/11, is well documented by Newsweek reporters, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball.

In Rather’s case, his team supposedly spent 5 years, 5 years, documenting their story only to have an expert analyst warn the foundational document was a forgery on the eve of broadcasting it. Rather chose to ignore the warning instead of committing another week to investigate further and now he’s in “deep do-do.”

Both of these men have an agenda that they will not let the facts get in the way of. Isn’t that exactly what they are accusing the Bush administration of? Going to war in Iraq “blinded by agenda in the face of the facts?” Seems to me they looked for in others that which they knew themselves capable of.

Rather has been quoted, I’m paraphrasing, that the content was believable despite the questionable source. Believable by whom, Mr. Rather? I thought the foundation of news reporting is documenting the facts, verify them, and don’t go public unless you have accurate information to give them.

Dan Rather and CBS have chosen to ignore that tenant and put agenda before public service. Now they reap the reward of their disservice.

Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq