Latest Entries
Passing the hat...
Must Read
Like Their Thinking
Like Attractive People (Women) And Sports
Dan And Bob . . .
Topic: Just When You Thought It Could Not Get Worse
Posted by Everyman - 16:33:21 EDT

Together again at last.


For Dan Rather, that's his story and he's stickin' to it:

For the record, your position on the Killian memos is that they were authentic - that they were, in fact, written by President George W. Bush's commanding officer. Is that what you believe?

I do. I believed in the documents at the time. I believed in them after they came under attack, and I believe in them now. This we do know: What was in the documents was factual and was true. Those who didn’t like the validity of the information, the questions about whether later President George Bush was AWOL from his National Guard unit — whether, as one high-ranking and decorated Pentagon person told us, he was guilty of desertion — the information in the documents was absolutely true.

To the grave.



For Bob Woodward, get him re-write . . .

Or no, never mind, not needed, he took care of it himself, done and done:

. . . Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's source known as "Z" was actually a member of the case's grand jury. The duo have always denied this, but when presented recently with the evidence, they confirmed it. [Also] Bradlee had shared the Doubt That Dare Not Speak Its Name: that Woodward and Bernstein had taken the soft clay of truth they had uncovered and molded it into a more visually appealing finished product.

A case built on witnesses is only as strong as the credibility of those witnesses, and this story has two prominent sources: Z and "Deep Throat," the FBI's Mark Felt. Yet this year we have seen the credibility of both witnesses suffer greatly. Felt's suffered from the publication of Max Holland's "Leak". Holland confirms that, in the reporting of the Watergate affair, unrelated details were forced into arranged marriages to tidy up the storyline, and that Felt was actually a disgruntled employee attempting to tarnish the reputations of those above him so he could replace them at the top of the heap. His selective leaking was designed to impugn the reputation of acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray. And there was more, as Andrew Ferguson writes in COMMENTARY:

The notes Woodward took at this meeting with Felt, now in a university archive, differ markedly from the account that Woodward gives in All the President’s Men.

"Many sentences [in the book] are moved around and the progression of Felt's remarks rearranged," Holland writes. "Occasionally the meaning of what [Felt] said is substantially changed . . . The account in the book contains words, phrases, and sometimes whole sentences that are not present in the type-written notes at all."

Here, then, is what we’ve been dealing with all these years: an inaccurate account explaining an erroneous newspaper article containing facts supplied by a double-dealing source who knew them to be untrue.

A messy business, journalism.

Woodward's account then?

Fake but accurate.

In case you wondered how Rather got the idea.

Or how messy journalism could possibly be.


Word Search
Date Search
Moon Phases
lunar phases