It's up at the USA Today site, among other places:
A judge said Wednesday that he was leaning toward allowing Dan Rather's $70 million lawsuit over his being fired by CBS to proceed.
"I concluded there was enough in the complaint (by Rather) to continue with discovery (pretrial research)," state Judicial Hearing Officer Ira Gammerman said at a hearing on CBS' motion to dismiss the case....
Rather, whose last months at CBS were clouded by a disputed story on President Bush's Vietnam-era military service, says his employers made him a "scapegoat" to placate the White House after questions arose about the story....
Rather was removed from his CBS Evening News post in March 2005, six months after he narrated a report that said Bush disobeyed orders and shirked some of his duties during his National Guard service. The report also said a commander felt pressured to sugarcoat Bush's record.
Isn't it kind of important that there wasn't just a "dispute" and "questions" about the story, but that there was serious suspicion that the story was based on fabricated documents? It's not every day that a prominent network story is said to be based on forgeries -- you'd think that would be worth mentioning, rather than just talking vaguely about the story being "disputed" and "questions" arising about it. Yet I look in vain through the AP item for any reference to that.
It's conceivable that USA Today may have cut something significant out of the AP version, but it's unlikely, given the lack of space constraints in the Web versions; and my look at other versions (for instance, this MSNBC one) suggests that nothing material was excluded by USA Today.
Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.