Occasionally, right-wing blogs prove useful. One site, for example, has published the transcript of a speech given by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), during which he accused Karl Rove of orchestrating the Rathergate affair.
Quite a few progressives feel the same way, but this is the first time (so far as I know) a member of congress has expressed this view. Of course, the conservatives have accused Hinchey for spreading "irresponsible" accusations.
But who is really being irresponsible? As the scandal unfolded, radio rightists, cable pundits and right-wing bloggers often accused CBS itself of deliberately faking the memos. Anyone who suggested that CBS did no such thing was damned as naive or worse. To this day, right-wing propagandists aver that CBS "intentionally perpetrated an election hoax."
Ridiculous. Dan Rather's producers trusted a single source who later changed his story. Poor journalism? Indeed -- but a far cry from the intentional spreading of a hoax.
Moreover, no-one has ever proven the documents fraudulent. A number of indicators point in that direction, but no expert on questioned documents has offered a conclusive analysis. Indeed, the right-wing bloggers who claimed that the documents were created using Microsoft Word are the only proven liars in this sorry matter. To demonstrate the point, simply fire up Microsoft Word and type in any number followed by the "th" superscript. Then compare your result to what you see on the memos. Look closely at the positioning.
However those documents were created, they were not created in the way the reactionaries contend. Why do we let disingenuous (and obviously well-recompensed) right-wing bloggers write our history?
2 comments:
It's hard not to let the rightists write history when they find a way to lose you your career, your savings, or maybe even your life, if you oppose their efforts. Reasonable liberals aren't going to return the favor and shouldn't.
(People like Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly should have their careers ruined, but not because they oppose our writing of history. They should have their careers ruined because they are serving as vectors of psychiatric illness, and they are doing so deliberately.)
A professor who is an expert on authendicating documents did an extensive study of the memos. I'm sorry I can't find the reference. I think he was Arizona State University. He concluded that the memos had to have been made on a typewriter of the correct vintage: they were produced mechanically, not with any computer program. The font is called "typewriter", commonly used on typewriters.
While he did not speculate on why the mysterious Latina woman asked that the originals be destroyed, and only copies kept, that is obvious if they were faked. Paper is much harder to fake, since the age can often be determined exactly. Likewise, if they were not faked, original paper would have contributed to their credibility.
Personally, I think Rove had access to the right kind of typewriter and had them produced to set up someone.
Post a Comment