Citizens for Honest Fighter Pilots Open Letter To Media

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:42:18 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

She doesn't have a clue. Can we really be asked to accept the premise
that "even though they are forgeries" the documents tell the truth?

Okay, I can't bear it any longer. Jonah Goldberg has written the
definitive analysis of The Rather Defense. Enjoy!

************************************************** ********

By JONAH GOLDBERG
Guest Commentary


I DON’T want to overstate the extent of my glee over the Dan Rather
imbroglio now known as “Memogate.” But, it may well be the Greatest
Story ... Ever (apologies to the Comic Book Guy from “The Simpsons”).
If this story were a street urchin, I would take into my home, give it
my name, and raise it as if it were my flesh and blood. If Monty Hall
gave me the choice of picking this story or the coolest thing ever to
reside behind Door No. 2, I would pick this story without a moment’s
hesitation. Cancel Christmas, suspend Hanukkah, blot out the sun with
copies of the forged memos, and I will be perfectly happy.

OK, I’m exaggerating a little. But this story is truly God’s Own
Piñata, you can bash it from any angle and nothing but sweet, sweet
goodness flows out. (Note: This analogy only works if you assume God
is vexed with Dan Rather in particular and liberal media bias in
general, which, truth be told, is a pretty big assumption.)

By now you know the basic outlines. To a great deal of fanfare, Dan
Rather — Dashboard Saint of Liberal Journalists Who Won’t Admit They
Are Liberal — joined in what appeared to be a coordinated barrage
against George W. Bush. Coinciding, deliberately or not, with a new ad
campaign targeting Bush’s service in the National Guard, Kitty
Kelley’s new book, and the Boston Globe’s latest expose, Rather’s “60
Minutes II” ran a story that claimed to reveal new, damning facts
about Bush’s allegedly lackadaisical service toward the end of his
stint in the Air National Guard. (Another note: I think the evidence
supports the notion that Bush was lackadaisical toward the end of his
Guard service but, I just don’t think it’s the big story Rather and so
many others want it to be.)

Dan Rather, anchoring the segment, relied on the testimony of a
hyperpartisan Democrat and former Texas politician, Ben Barnes, whose
story about getting Bush into the Guard has changed numerous times.
Because Barnes is a co-chairman of the Kerry campaign, Rather needed
something better than Barnes’ word. He thought he found it in four
documents, which Rather claimed substantiated the report.

The only problem: The documents are almost certainly forgeries — if by
“almost certainly” you mean “absolutely, positively.” First on various
Internet sites and then in the mainstream media (particularly ABC News
and the Washington Post), the memos have become a “What’s Wrong With
This Picture?” game for anybody and everybody who knows anything about
the National Guard, 1970s typewriters, or the proper means of
verifying a story.

Indeed, every day since the story broke, the much-vaunted experts and
witnesses CBS relied upon to authenticate the memos have made it clear
that CBS wasn’t particularly eager to get the truth. Their chief
expert, the Washington Post revealed, now says he never even tried to
authenticate the documents themselves, merely the signature which had
been photocopied and faxed somewhere between 12 and a zillion times.
Indeed, CBS has been asking its professional experts not to speak to
the media — a sure sign that they know they didn’t nail down the story
in the first place.

Meanwhile, Dan Rather has dug in for dear life, ridiculing his critics
and dismissing pretty much anyone who has eyes to see the truth as a
“partisan,” while the CBS front office continues to break off bits of
it credibility like a man who feeds an alligator one body part at a
time. A CBS spokeswoman told the Post: “In the end, the gist is that
it’s inconclusive. People are coming down on both sides, which is to
be expected when you’re dealing with copies of documents.”
Translation: We can’t prove the source is true, but you can’t prove
it’s not.

Well, since this is the new standard, I would like to announce my next
column topic right now: Dan Rather has eaten fifteen German Shepherds
in the last year alone and he considers himself the Warrior King of
the planet Blarnack. I have just printed out documents that back up my
story. It is for CBS to prove me wrong.

I could go on all day and into the night. But the point is this: Dan
Rather is toast. Or, more broadly, “Dan Ratherism” is over. The man
who used to sign off his broadcasts with “Courage” may be able to ride
out this scandal, insofar as he won’t be unceremoniously fired. But
the age of the Nightly News Anchor as trusted uncle is now officially
dead. It was dying already, but this scandal is its death rattle. Even
if Rather admitted that he put the BS in CBS, it’s too late to save
his reputation with millions. Besides, once he admits that the
documents are fake, he has to reveal his source, because there is no
journalistic obligation to protect con artists who humiliate you. And
my guess is that the source is even more embarrassing than the fraud.

I can’t prove that. But who says I have to?

************************************************** **************************

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com