I really hadn’t been paying much attention to the Dan Rather lawsuit. Somewhere at the back of my mind I had registered that people were ridiculing the lawsuit, and him for filing it. And then I came across Sidney Blumenthal‘s story on Salon.com. It not only got my attention, it now has me cheering from the sidelines.

But let’s start with WaPo‘s Howard Kurtz‘s story from September 20, to set the scene. Apart from producing a total hatchet job, Kurtz has the poor taste to insert himself into his story:

I was extremely surprised by Dan Rather’s lawsuit yesterday, but not as stunned as the CBS people I called, who just simply could not believe it.

No one was shocked that Rather is still mad at CBS — he made that clear when he left the network last year, and more recently when he took that swipe at his old show being tarted up under Katie Couric.
[...]
But that the man who succeeded Walter Cronkite, who was the face of CBS News for 25 years, would turn around and sue, rather than moving on with his life — that was one heck of an eye-opener.

All that was just preamble; only after that does world famous master journalist Howard Kurtz start his report. I’m not going to dignify the report by actually quoting proper chunks. Broken bits and pieces will give the flavor quite adequately: “In an extraordinary move that reflects the depth of his resentment toward his former network … former colleagues said they were baffled by the move. “I think he’s gone off the deep end,” said Josh Howard … CBS brushed off the suit, which alleges fraud and breach of contract, with a single sentence … ”

In short, Kurtz does not think very highly of Rather or his lawsuit.

That was Howard Kurtz, of whom it could quite fairly be said that he does not think, period. So how about someone who can and does? That would be Sidney Blumenthal:

Dan Rather’s complaint against CBS and Viacom, its parent company, filed in New York state court on Sept. 19 and seeking $70 million in damages for his wrongful dismissal as “CBS Evening News” anchor, has aroused hoots of derision from a host of commentators. They’ve said that the former anchor is “sad,” “pathetic,” “a loser,” on an “ego” trip and engaged in a mad gesture “no sane person” would do …

If the court accepts his suit, however, launching the adjudication of legal issues such as breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract, it will set in motion an inexorable mechanism that will grind out answers to other questions as well. Then Rather’s suit will become an extraordinary commission of inquiry into a major news organization’s intimidation, complicity and corruption under the Bush administration. No congressional committee would be able to penetrate into the sanctum of any news organization to divulge its inner workings. But intent on vindicating his reputation, capable of financing an expensive legal challenge, and armed with the power of subpoena, Rather will charge his attorneys to interrogate news executives and perhaps administration officials under oath on a secret and sordid chapter of the Bush presidency.

In making his case, Rather will certainly establish beyond reasonable doubt that George W. Bush never completed his required service in the Texas Air National Guard. Moreover, Rather’s suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his “60 Minutes II” piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained — and that that information is true. Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.

Most cases of this sort are usually settled before discovery. But Rather has made plain that he is uninterested in a cash settlement. He has filed his suit precisely to be able to take depositions.

This promises to be hugely entertaining and wonderfully satisfying.

Among other things, Rather’s lawsuit promises to shine a harsh and embarrassing spotlight on the attempts of CBS management to bury the Abu Ghraib story in response to government pressure:

Rather’s suit states that “for weeks, they refused to grant permission to air the story” and “continued to ‘raise the goalposts,’ insisting on additional substantiation.” Even after (producer Mary Mapes) gained possession of some of the now-infamous photographs of the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib (a full set of which was later obtained and posted by Salon), the news executives suppressed the story, “in part,” according to Rather’s suit, “occasioned by acceding to pressures brought to bear by government officials.”

Gen. Richard Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Rather at his home, sources close to the case told me, telling him that broadcasting the story would endanger “national security.” Myers explained to Rather that U.S. soldiers, just then poised for an assault on Fallujah, would be demoralized and suggested that Rather and CBS might threaten the outcome of the battle and the soldiers’ safety.

Only when Seymour Hersh, investigative reporter for the New Yorker, … unearthed the Abu Ghraib story and CBS executives learned that the magazine was about to scoop the network did they grudgingly permit it to be aired. “Even then,” Rather’s suit states, “CBS imposed the unusual restrictions that the story would be aired only once, that it would not be preceded by on-air promotion, and that it would not be referenced on the CBS Evening News.”

Blumenthal ends: “Rather’s suit may turn into one of the most sustained and informative acts of investigative journalism in his long career. He is not going gentle into that good night.”

Stay tuned! Rather may be about to demonstrate exactly what hell hath no fury like.