Letters to the Editor
-
pshaw!
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.
"Were not inauthentic." What a wonderfully bullshit-ful construction. When you can't say what you want to say in plain English, it's a sure sign you're committing baloneyous assault. But it's just what we've come to expect from Blumenthal the Political Hack.
The documents were as phoney as a three-dollar bill because they were shown, without at shadow of a doubt, to have been produced on computer-based word processing programs that did not exist when the docs were supposedly written. They were givene to Mary Mapes by a man who'd had a personal, decades-long hate campaign against all the Bushes.
And the most credible source you can image--the family of the officer who supposedly wrote the docs--have sworn up and down that he did not do that sort of thing and had not stored any such documents from any time during his military career.
Rather wants us to believe that he, the "tough" reporter, would just roll over an apologize for a story that he truly believed to be true? If you believe that, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Rather is trying to salvage his reputation, which will just sink even deeper into the toilet after this suit.
Most important, though, is who cares? Why can't the moonbats just let this be? Bush has said on many an occasion, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresposible." He admits he did not live a very good life for most of his young adult years.
But he didn't run for Prez based on his military record. Kerry did, conveniently forgetting that his military record was at best tainted, especially by his slandering of his fellow soldiers after the war.