Mincing Words

C-BS, just released a statement this morning apologizing for the false disinformation that it was released.  According to one source the network is going to hire a panel of experts to in their words “scrutinize” it’s reporting of the President’s service record.  Translation - we are still clinging the hope among hope that it’s all true.

I read somewhere else that they now believe that they were duped into believing that these documents were authentic. Yet they, the officials and C-BS, were warned by several experts that what they had might not be what they wanted it to be, and could not be authenticated and even worse may have been forgeries.

It all comes down to what they WANTED to believe.  The left’s hatred of President Bush has so blinded them that they were willing to gamble on the release of these documents solely for the purpose of destroying the President. 

The ultimate bring down for CBS, is when a blogger, whose expertise is the field of electronic documents, programming, and the preparation of thereof made a definitive commentary complete with pictures of the compared fonts that were reportedly used in the documents.  As proof of his expertise the blogger stated that he was designing programs for laser printers before there was a laser. The blogger went on to describe the various differences between the fonts that were used in both documents. And how it was virtually impossible for that document to have been written by any form of electronic processing machines or typewriters that were in current use at that point in time. (One such machine that was considered was the IBM selectric).

For an in depth look at the above mentioned piece  click on the link below this article

Secondly as reported earlier during the week by the Dallas Morning news, that Colonel Staudt, that supposedly pressured the President’s commanding officer to write such glowing reviews of his, then Lt. Bush’s service record had retired a year and a half prior to the actual review. 

All of this reminds me of the usual double-speak of the left.  Once again I seem to hear in my head, it all depends on what is, is. What they so badly wanted to hear, was not what they heard, but what they THOUGHT they heard. I have a saying that I have sort of borrowed from a magazine I used to subscribe to a few years ago.

“I stand by what I meant to say”

In this case its more like:

I stand by what I meant to and so badly wanted to hear.

Rich

Editor

The BCC