Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Dan Rather: Bush hates me, I’ll depose him, yada-yada-yada…

The pitiful saga of a once-respected (by many, not by me) journalist continues to unfold before our very eyes, and it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy than Dan Rather. From San Franistan’s Examiner:

Former CBS “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather choked back tears on several occasions today when discussing his decision to file a lawsuit against CBS and he left many audience members with a sense that he may call President George W. Bush as a witness should the lawsuit proceed to trial (and Rather said he hoped it would).

When asked by Carol Joynt, host of the “Q&A Café” held at Nathans restaurant who worked with Rather at CBS in the 1970s, whether “he’d like to” call President Bush as a witness in the trial, Rather paused, then said “I’d like not to answer the question,” leaving both Joynt and audience members wondering whether the newsman has Bush in his sights.” Joynt later told Yeas & Nays, “From the look in his eye — and he gave me a definite Ratheresque look — I got the impression he will call the president as a witness. Possibly both of them: 41 and 43. He implied the suit is not against them, but what the suit is about stems directly from his antagonistic relationship with them.”

In the lawsuit, Rather claims he was unjustifiably squeezed out of CBS by network executives following a 2004 story about President Bush’s service record in the Texas Air National Guard. After evidence emerged that the story’s primary documents were possibly faked or forged, Rather stated on air that “if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”

I’ll come back to the prior paragraph in a second, but I think it’s fair to give you a beverage warning right now. Put down your drink, pronto! OK, you’ve been warned!

Joynt asked Rather if he believes the president hates him, and Rather responded by saying that “hate is a strong word.” Then, he began to well up. “You’ve never met anybody who had more respect for the presidency than I do,” said Rather, choking back tears. He stood by his 2004 story, saying “we got the truth, but we left ourselves vulnerable.”

Interesting: I would have not gone ahead with the story”, but “we got the truth”? Still sticking to the “fake but accurate” script, are we, Gunga Dan?

The fact is, Dan, you were fired from CBS for bringing disrepute to the network, and its Evening News has never fully recovered (hiring Couric darned sure didn’t help) since your brazen attempt to sway the results of the election of 2004 with a bogus, uncorroborated story. Despite your numerous claims to be “fiercely independent”, you have always been a leftist partisan hack, even going so far as to be the keynote speaker at a 2001 Texas Democrats fundraiser.

Our CLOWNS snoopers Word has it that Dan Rather’s legal team will call a still gainfully employed prizewinning journalist named Ima Shyster from the National Enquirer who ran stories of Elvis on a UFO that (wouldn’t you know it?) just so happened to be fakes (who knew?), yet ran the story anyway with the “OK, the photos are fake, but the story is real” defense. This has not yet been confirmed.

September 27, 2007 - Posted by | Dan Rather, media bias, shameful

12 Comments »

  1. Thanks for the drink warning. My new 19-inch plasma monitor thanks you. Do you think perhaps something else may have happened to Dan during the “what’s the frequency” encounter? I’m thinking he was abducted and brainwashed, and Cheney is actually an alien from Zambodia.

    Comment by The Truth Hurts | September 27, 2007

  2. The story about Bush’s record was accurate. Even without the one document that may have been fake, there is overwhelming evidence pointing to Bush being AWOL. So the question is, will Bush get on the stand and admit that he was a draft dodger or will he lie as Clinton did and get nailed in the same way?

    Comment by Ellis | September 27, 2007

  3. I see Gunga Dan isn’t the only leftard clinging to the pathetic Elvis-in-a-UFO “fake but accurate” story line.

    Even without the one document that may have been fake,

    MAY have been? Dude, it was created with Microsoft Word and used Word’s default font and superscripting, and it was composed by a Democrat party hack, and it used terminology and dating styles that weren’t (and still aren’t) used in the military! Aside from that, yeah, it was teeming with authenticity. Moron.

    … there is overwhelming evidence pointing to Bush being AWOL.

    Yeah, that “honorable discharge” thingy sure bears that AWOL talking point out, doesn’t it? Dipsh#t.

    …get on the stand and admit that he was a draft dodger

    What’s Bill Clinton got to do with this? Pffffffffff-bwhahahahahahahaha!

    Folks, you wanted me to throw you an occasional moonbat, right? Well, here you go…have at it! :-D

    Comment by crushliberalism | September 27, 2007

  4. >Yeah, that “honorable discharge” thingy sure bears that AWOL talking point out, doesn’t it? Dipsh#t.

    Yes, it does when your father can pull strings not only to get you into a Champagne unit with a 500 person waiting list, but also guarantee the he got his honorable discharge without ever showing up for duty in Alabama after being grounded because he couldn’t even be bothered to take a physical. As I said, the one possibly forged document does nothing to alter the truth of the matter. Nobody has even questioned the accuracy of all the other documentation.

    >What’s Bill Clinton got to do with this? Pffffffffff-bwhahahahahahahaha!

    Just their common tendency to lie.

    Comment by Ellis | September 27, 2007

  5. OK..Ellis is from Zambodia as well.

    For you non-Memphians:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Mongo

    Comment by The Truth Hurts | September 27, 2007

  6. As I said, the one possibly forged document does nothing to alter the truth of the matter.

    As I said, dipshit, there is no “possibly” forged document. It’s unquestionably forged. And if the rest of the story was “true”, why did he need a forged document to prove it? That’s what I thought.

    Nobody has even questioned the accuracy of all the other documentation.

    Uh, I hate to break this to you, oh mental midget, but EVERYONE questioned the accuracy of the rest of the story once it became clear that the #1 supporting element of the story was a forgery.

    Here’s a little something to clear the palate, thus ridding your mouth of that disgusting taste left by devouring without question the crap that the DNC and the MSM (pardon the redundacy) has been feeding you:

    http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth.htm

    But what do THEY know? They were only there with him, huh?

    Sorry, lightweight, but you’re hopelessly deluded. Give my best to the gents in the white coats, m’kay?

    Comment by crushliberalism | September 27, 2007

  7. Now that it’s going to trial, we’ll all be able to see what’s forged and what isn’t. Notice how Dan isn’t particularly interested in the money, instead he’s just looking to get a lot of people on the stand and under oath. Surely this is no more a fishing expedition than the whole Paula Jones thing, or is there a double standard?

    Also, here’s a clue: “Conservative” isn’t a team, and you’re not head cheerleader.

    Comment by Ellis | September 27, 2007

  8. >But what do THEY know? They were only there with him, huh?

    Then it shouldn’t be any problem for him to produce the documents proving all of this when he’s on the stand. Right?

    Comment by Ellis | September 27, 2007

  9. Notice how Dan isn’t particularly interested in the money

    Yeah, I noticed that $70 million asking price. I wouldn’t be interested in that, either.

    Also, here’s a clue: “Conservative” isn’t a team, and you’re not head cheerleader.

    If you clicked on the About Me link, Merriam-Webster, you’d see that I don’t identify myself as a “conservative”. Until you provide me with a document (preferably one not obtained by Dan Rather) that shows I consider myself conservative, why don’t you just stick to the issues at hand, whatsay leftard?

    Then it shouldn’t be any problem for him to produce the documents proving all of this when he’s on the stand. Right?

    I doubt he’s sweating bullets, dullard. But if you’ve got your Fitzmas…er, Christmas…hopes pinned on this, then don’t let me ruin it for you.

    Comment by crushliberalism | September 27, 2007

  10. TTH I think you’re right. I think Ellis is the illegitimate love child of Prince Mongo, er King Mongo, I forgot he got a promotion.
    How did Paula Jones get in this?

    Comment by tnjack | September 27, 2007

  11. Danny Boy must be hurting for money, he appeared on a TV show called “Dirty Sexy Money”. ACTING!!

    You can bet your ass, if there had been other documentation regarding the situation, the MSM would have dug it up long ago.

    Comment by Lee | September 27, 2007

  12. I think our president must be the most honest godly president we may have ever seen. With all the Soros’ money and the MSM efforts all these years and they haven’t dug up anything, no dirt at all? I mean other than the paperwork they made up?

    Comment by tnjack | September 28, 2007


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Previous | Next »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers