Proving a Negative - Still As Hard As It's Ever Been

Just caught Dan Rather's broadcast involving the (clearly bogus) memos he started waving around on 60 Minutes II Wednesday night. First thing I noticed was his voice. I, like a whole slew of people, haven't watched Dan Rather's... er... unique take on the news in years. So, I don't know if his voice normally sounds like he's been screaming like a fifteen year old girl at a Beatles concert all day, but his voice sounded... well... like he's been screaming like a fifteen year old girl at a Beatles concert all day.

Second thing I noticed was how defensive he was. Defensive and arrogant. Then more arrogant than defensive. His attitude virtually screamed, "How dare these peons, these bloggers, question me. Don't they know who I am?"

We, Dan, are the ones who have shot your "evidence" full of holes. Period.

I'd say we're also the ones that made you look like a sap and a bias partisan hack, but you've got that covered well enough.

You keep harping on about on how we are focusing on the documents (and their alledged authenticity) instead of the allegations you put forth in your report. The reason for that, oh Titan of the Unbiased Media™, is because if the documents you are basing your conclusions upon are bogus, the conclusions are also bogus.

That's not to say that then LT Bush didn't fail to show up for duty as you and yours are so desperate to prove. It simply means that what you thought was a smoking gun, isn't.

Look, Dan, seriously. You were had. You were had because you wanted to believe. That's how con-men work. They show you what you want to see. Tell you what you want to hear. You were had. Just 'fess up and deal with it like a man.