Truth And Consequences
Dan "Stark Raving Naked" Rather had one shot at redeeming whatever credibility still clung to CBS/"Stark Raving Naked" Rather/60 Minutes last night. After promising the statement at 12:00 EST, the wise acres at CBS bypassed the afternoon radio talk show broadsides and went with a segment on their evening news show. I didn't watch it, as I, like most Americans, don't watch CBS News.
"Stark Raving Naked" Rather suggested in the statement that the documents used as the foundation of the report may be forgeries.
Through all of the frenzied debate of the past week, the basic content of the 60 MINUTES Wednesday report - that President Bush received preferential treatment to gain entrance to the Texas Air National Guard and that he may not have fulfilled all of the requirements -- has not been substantially challenged.Um, earth to Dan. These allegations have been challenged, beaten, drawn, quartered, and burned at the stake. Every election W has been in, including both Texas Governor's races and the election of 2000 have focused on these allegations. Nothing was found.
On the documents:
Again, the documents used for the 60 MINUTES Wednesday report were copies, and most of the analysis fueling the current controversy is based on scanned, downloaded, faxed or re-copied copies. For now, the disagreementsThe problem, dear Dan, is not in the reproduction of the documetns, but in the original production there of. I again point to evidence to the contrary here and here. The bottom line is the documents were produced using technology that is three, not thirty-two years old. They are attributed to the "personal files" of a man whose own wife states he kept no such thing. He did not type, and his secretary denies typing them for him. Other family members have publicly stated the files did not come from them. Does anyone think the Texas Air National Guard has 30+ files sitting around just waiting for former guardsmen to run for office?
among "dueling experts" have not been resolved.
Then Dan "Stark Raving Naked" Rather keeps digging his hole with astonishing speed. The New York Observer's Joe Hagan quotes The Naked Rather as stating the following:
Dan, let me be blunt. W doesn't need your respect. He definitely doesn't need your campaign advice. The very prospect of answering questions coming from a story based upon documents which have now been proven (evidently to everyone else but you) to be forgeries (Piss poor forgeries by the way - evidently produced at a Texas Kinkos) is preposterous. Until such time as the evidence proves to be something other than a Lurch/Breck Girl/DNC/Terry McAwful/CBS/"Stark Raving Naked"/60 Minutes wet dream, you can forget about those answers.
With respect: answer the questions. We've heard what you have to say about the documents and what you've said and what your surrogates have said, but for the moment, answer the questions. I say that with respect. They'd be a lot stronger in their campaign if they did do that.
That is, unless you want to answer this question, Dan.
Do you still beat your wife?
Here endeth the lesson.
PS. Dan, just so you know what all those underlined words are in the text above, when I make accusations against somebody (you), I cite my sources. Its something I learned in my first english class as a high school freshman. You might want to take one of those classes yourself.