Whoops! Ace Screws Up Again -- Retracting Erroneous "Rather Parsing" Post

The original post was entirely in error. Rather actually does say he believes the documents are authentic:

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?

I missed that part. Sorry.

The rest of the post will be left here (as I shouldn't bury my errors), but it'll be beyond the jump. It's an incorrect story, and there's no point reading it except to have a laugh at me.

PS: Dave at Garfield Ridge didn't actually lead me down this path, although I cited him in the post as suggesting something similar. He didn't actually suggest what I did. So I'm wrong, he's not. Dave's point-- that Rather seems to be suggesting that however they came upon this story, the story remains true in any event, still looks good. Rather does seem to be de-emphasizing the documents he this past Wednesday put so much stock in.

Now, Phil on the other hand...

Did Rather Employ Clintonian Parsing?

[ERRONEOUS POST]

Phil and Garfield Ridge ask the same question: Did Dan Rather actually clearly declare that the documents are genuine?

Well-- not by a longshot, actually.

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

The story is true, he's claiming. And he distinguishes "the story" from "how we got the story." He doesn't aver that the documents are true-- just "the story" which flows from the documents (and those, he seems to allow, may in fact be fake).

I think we're going to need better than that, Mr. Rather. We need to know whether you specifically allege the documents themselves are genuine or if you admit they are fake (or may be fake).

I'm afraid we can't accept this "story" bullshit. First things first. Let's deal with the documents, then move on to "the story."

Whatever's left of it, at least.

Refusing to admit the documents are false while also refusing to say you stand behind them? Good Grief, Dan. That ain't gonna hold up very long at all.

It might not even hold up as long as your 60 Minutes "scoop."

Dan Rather Retirement Watch Update:

At the tone, the Dan Rather Retirement Watch displays a time of

(bong)

11:47pm -- three minutes closer to midnight (retirement)

posted by Ace at 03:24 PM

| Access Comments