One interesting question: who or what gave Mapes & Rather such confidence in the story that they didn't even bother to check the documents, except in the most cursory and pro forma manner? I know they wanted to believe the story, but it beggars belief that they would go so far out on a limb on Bill Burkett's say-so alone. Was it some kind of Democratic/MSM mass hysteria in action?
I polished my crystal ball until it shone like a quicksilver mirror, asked it your question. This is its response:
You ready?
Dan Rather knew the documents were fakes.
I know, I know. Sounds farfetched, doesn't it? Bear my crystal ball out for a sec.
Let's examine the evidence:
1.- It takes about a nanosecond to check out Burkett's bona fides, stability, leanings, mentality, etc.
2.- It takes about a nanosecond to determine that the documents are false.
3.- After Rather gets caught, he stonewalls, calls in document examiners who are about as competent at their job as Burkett was in forging the memos.
4.- The apology is interesting to a lawyer--it is wordsmithed in such a way that does not allow for the later argument that Rather admitted to knowingly using forgeries, an act which would land him in the pokey. But, if he didn't knowingly use forgeries, he didn't need to use weasel language in the apology, language which has created the predictable PR disaster for a network whose news department's rating are in freefall. Someone very high up the food chain made a decision that Rather's potential criminal problems outweighed the economic and reputation damage an inappropriate, weasely apology would inevitably lead to.
5.- If Rather did not have legal difficulties in mind, why interview Burkett, get him to say he mislead Rather, if not to possibly throw off the prosecutorial bloodhounds?
What Burkett did when interviewed by Rather was absolutely incredible. I have never heard of anyone take a fall like he did. No one in Burkett's position with a smidgen of an instinct of self-preservation would have agreed to an interview. In other words, Burkett had nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking to Rather and admitting to "misleading" him--and he did.
Wassup w/ that?
Weird, very weird.
There are wheels within wheels here, and I smell something rotting in Dan's refrigerator. Could it be that the Dems are linked to the story?
Cui bono, my crystal ball said when I asked it that question.
There is some support for the notion that the DNC had the documents months before Rather did, and found them too dubious to use.
But then the Kerry campaign fizzles, looks like it is headed for anignominious defeat.
Desperation sets in, what to do?
Pssst, we've got these doc's here that are gonna ruin Bush, let's find a way to get them to the public. Besides, that goddam Karl Rove is a nasty SOB, he'd do the same thing to us.
The story could be huge, enormous, scandalous as hell.
But we won't hear about it before the election.
If Kerry gets elected, oh, brother what a mess should the criminal folks end up with the affair. What a way to emasculate a Prez at a time when we will need a strong one.
I generally am slow to give rise to this kind of stuff, but there is something otherworldly about the whole thing, and it doesn't make sense to me. |
