Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Dan, Are you Retarded?
Obviously, as I have already written, the Rather apology was a weaselfest that did not acknowledge that 1) the story was preposterous to begin with, 2) that other people proved the documents were fake 3) there are typographical anachronisms in the document 4) they unjustly impugned Bush 5) they responded to legitimate criticism with name calling 6) they insulted the intelligence of all of their viewers and 7) they never actually retracted the story, only saying that they would have "reported it differently." Inspector Dan Cluseau now highlights exactly how weaselly he was with this

"Do I think they're forged? No," Rather said. "But it's not good enough to use the documents on the air if we can't vouch for them, and we can't vouch for them."
Rather said he had no regrets for his defense of the story.

Via: RLS

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?