| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Monday night I posted:
Only demonstrable provenance can remotely justify Rathers use of those memos. Provenance is precisely what Rather is failing to provide. Its a gigantic gaping gap in his Monday-night defense. Without provenance there is no possible justification for the use of those memos.
Yet Rather used them anyway. Does this equal fraud?
In response to Tuesday’s revelations by ABC that several experts consulted by 60 MINUTES advised that the memos could not be considered authentic, Beldar argues that 60 MINUTES’ behavior does equal fraud:
Dan Rather was complicit in defrauding the American public in an attempt to defeat a sitting President. Rather must be fired now. Congress should subpoena CBS News’ lawyers and all documentation of their advice.
It really makes a lot of sense. Dan Rather knew darn well at the very least that they couldn’t confirm the authenticity of those memos, but he used them anyway as proof. He didn’t care if they were authentic or not—he just wanted to use them to push his attack on Bush. And now he’s relying on this absurd “we’re 60 MINUTES and you don’t dare question us” defense.
It makes you wonder how much other questionable material 60 MINUTES may have passed off on the public over the years.
There’s an old saying: “Who’s watching the watchmen?” In the case of the press, with the coming of the blogosphere, there is now an answer to that age-old question.
(Hat tip for Beldar article to Andrew Breitbart ).
