It reminds me of the people who say even though they know there are lies and distortions in Michael Moore's movies it speaks to a larger truth.

In other words, they're a bunch of apologists for something that is indefensible.

Note carefully - CBS is standing by its STORY. Not specifically standing on the authenticity of the documents, but the story told by them, and other sporces.

They may be starting to weave a tail that the story is buttressed by multiple sources of information, any one of which could collapse without making the STORY false.

Phil, please cite the language so I can steal your work and claim credit for myself.

It reminds me of the people who say even though they know there are lies and distortions in Michael Moore's movies it speaks to a larger truth.

In film school we studied that under "Socialist Realism of the early USSR." Whole documentaries were made from movie clips, so much so that even today a lot of them are shown as actualities when discussing the revolution. Makes you think when you relaize someone will go back to the NYT microfilm (and CBS DVDs) in 100 years when they do a paper on this election.

And lo, deeply did Joshua Michael Joktan begat Almodad begat Sheleph begat Hazarmaveth begat Jerah begat Hadoram begat Uzal begat Diklah Marshall did drink deeply of the well of Bath-Koolade, and great was the screeching that arose.

See, Josuah, call me anything you want, just don't call me late for supper, Micah Marshall is doing the same goddam thing I was talking about.

I mean, what are these people saying? That's it's okay to falsify and distort because it's true anyway, because they say it is, and no lack of proof is going to stop them?

All I know is, those Arkansas chiggers do suck. Such fond memories of my youth...bleach baths, clear nail polish, itching...

Oh yeah, Rather is a douchebag.

Ace-- I think you're missing a big angle, something Drudge captured when he quoted CNN's interview with Dan this morning. Dan isn't just standing by the story-- just like Marshall a major netowrk anchor is arguing that the story still exists even if the memos are forgeries.

This is what I wrote on my site:

"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."

Okay Dan, you've made it clear. You believe this story is true.

And you believe the story told by the memos is more important than how you got that story.

That's obvious, Dan. I agree, 100%. Self-evident fact.

*IF THE MEMOS ARE REAL, AND NOT FORGERIES.*

Danny baby, if these memos are fake-- fake, like "Lindsay Lohan's beautiful breasts"-fake-- then there *is* no story to raise "important questions." The story you wanted to report does not exist and thus goes away-- the story you now need to report is very different, and unfortunately one that I doubt 60 Minutes will be very eager to cover.

Cheers,
Dave
Garfield Ridge

I think someone needs to ask:

"What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

These documents came from the new (Clinton) operatives in the Kerry campaign. The DNC served as go-between for CBS and slipped the documents to a CBS producer. That's why McAuliffe is already admitting these are forgeries--he was part of the chain of custody.

As for Josh Marshall, I am coming to see he is a whore, and a cheap whore at that.

Great site http://test1.com test2 [url=http://test3.com]test3[/url]