Can anybody explain to me what is happening here? If I interpret the NY Times correctly, they are now saying that yes, the documents used by the Rather Unreliable Dan Rather to slander the presidents military service are fake, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY.

Huh? what does this doublespeak mean in English? Am I missing something here?

 

I just saw this email a few hours ago:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20040915.shtml

Rich

 

It's called the Michael Moore defense. "Well, yes, I made some things up and distorted others, but only in the service of a greater truth." Very Clintonian in its "The ends justify the means" attitude.

 

Well I knew the media had it's own agenda, but even still they have sunk to an even lower level than before....Hard to do since they are all a bunch of lying snakes in the first place

 

They should have looked at EBAY- for something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...839925186&rd=1



AlpineRAM

 

Ingenious!
How on earth did you find this on e-bay?

 

Heck, they've been digging for a long time to reach the level they're at now.

Now that's friggin' hilarious!