9/11 and 11/2
It turns out that the election this year represents an opportunity to vote for a president and against the Mainstream Media, which shields things from us that its editors think will incite our passions, or cause us to make wrong choices. Exhibit A, which was taboo even on 9/11 itself:
Sometimes we don’t take seriously the evidence in front of us. When we found out that Beltway journalists are as much as 12 to 1 for Kerry, we said, what’s new? When Evan Thomas said the media would deliver as much as 15 points for Kerry we said, what a blowhard!
This 9/11 we see that there is a new, more dangerous and degenerate set of cuircumstances in the elite MSM: a news anchor, at one of the national networks, for goodness sakes, who will flat-out lie to preserve the political message he is delivering, and his network will cover-up for him.
From miniature superscripts, to paper size to kerning, it was trivial to prove the memos were forgeries. Rowan Scarborough has a nice article today, telling us, for example that local TV news reporters are joining in the fun, superimposing this on that, and humiliating Dan Rather and CBS in real time. Powerline continues to be our clearinghouse of choice on the evidence — which continues to mount.
Yet, bizarrely, Dan Rather and CBS maintain that the documents are real, based partly on specious technical arguments but more importantly because “the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content.” You see, the higher truth they reveal makes the documents extra real.
We have previously discussed the lead-in interview to the memos, that of Ben Barnes by Rather, and we have discussed at length both the scandal-ridden past of Barnes, and the undiclosed potential conflict of interest of Rather in the case of the former Texas Lt. Governor. Against CBS policy, Rather spoke at a fundraiser for the Travis County Democrats, where Barnes serves on the Finance Council, and where Rather’s daughter Robin is said to be considering becoming the Democratic mayor of the Travis County seat, Austin. Rather should have been nowhere near that interview, or at least disclosed his connections to Barnes. But, as with the forged memos, it was the “higher truth” that was important.
What does this all add up to? We have a phony interview used to set up a phony hit piece based on phony documents, and the Anchor and his network tell us to pound sand when they are questioned. Why should we be surprised? Didn’t we see this all before, with Richard Clarke, Woodward, Joe Wilson, etc.
Alas, we did. But it is still so disappointing to see men — newsmen — sink so low that they can not admit trivial truths like the forgeries when they conflict with their ideological agenda. I was going to say, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.” But the truth is right now I’m just sad that it’s come to this.