The Dan Rather non-story: Today's news diversion - part II

[devilgrrl]

Not that most of you already didn't know... this is so overblown it's fucking disgusting. :puke:

[babylonsister]

1. I agree. And hardly a word on Armstrong, which to me

is the bigger, uglier story.

[hoi polloi]

9. So they brought up Dan Rather today

To detract from the Armstrong story? Makes sense.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. That darn ole librul media

just knew we would be more interested in CBS today than in Armstrong Williams.

Don't ya love the way they make these decisions for us?

[nine23]

3. The FReepers are all over it like "shit to _________".

They seem to think they helped "break" the story. They can't even fucking spell.

[glarius]

4. The witnesses on the 60 Minute show proved that Bush was a sherker!

They didn't even need the "fake" document to make their case against Bush...Remember the elderly woman who was the secretary for the Officer who supposedly wrote the document in dispute?...She said that even if it was a fake document, everything in it was TRUE!....and other people they interviewed on that program verified the facts too....strangely none of this is ever mentioned....only the flap about the "fake" document!....It's all so damned phony!..:puke:

[Octafish]

5. Benjamin Barnes, the Texas House Speaker, too.

The story was confirmed. People KNOW Bush was a malingerer. Barnes said he helped jump W to the head of the waiting list. The papers Rather read and their fake provenance became the news peg to draw attention away from the basic facts of the story: Bush is a coward.

[number6]

6. Dan Rather non-story....yes

and when will they ever investigate Bu$h ????

[nagbacalan]

7. All that's been established is that Burkett lied about his source yet it's

become part of our folklore that the documents were proven forgeries.

[brook]

8. interesting...

I came away from the whole thing thinking the papers were not 'forgeries' but photocopied so many times they were 'generations' away from the originals. Maybe they were 'paraphrased' from originals but I never bought the idea that someone forged the material. The information contained in them had been talked about(with some veracity) forever. The commanding officer's secretary said they accurately reflected his take on things.

Like 'late term abortion', I think this is a case where we have allowed the other side to establish the (erroneous) definitions.