Clearing the Fog
in the
War of Words


  logomachy--1. A dispute about words. 2. A dispute carried on in words only; a battle of words.
logomachon--1. One who argues about words. 2. A word warrior.



Dan's documents

I think the public, even decent people who may be well-disposed toward President Bush, understand that powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they can’t deny the fundamental truth of the story. If you can’t deny the information, then attack and seek to destroy the credibility of the messenger, the bearer of the information.Dan Rather [emphasis added]

Oh, Dan, Dan! If I’ve said it once I’ve said it lots of times, if you want to know what the liberals are up to, look at what they accuse you of doing. In their guilt-driven thought processes, they always project.

Here you are, Dan, unable, unwilling to offer any refutation of the mass of information that casts doubt on the authenticity of your supposed National Guard memos about George Bush. So you question the motives and character (in irrelevant ways) of the people providing that information and accuse them of attacking the credibility of the messenger rather than refuting the message.

What makes it especially delicious is that everything you say is a lie.

    First, the people challenging the authenticity of the documents are the Pajamujihdin of the blogsphere, hardly powerful and rich, plus the purported author’s family, his former associates, and every forensic expert who has been willing to offer an opinion, including CBS’s own expert. Well, OK, I’ll give you “powerful and extremely well-financed” if you admit that the other broadcast networks, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and various other papers have questioned the authenticity.

    Second, contrary to your accusation, there have been refutations of CBS’s story of favoritism and dereliction of duty. However, no argument has been based on impugning the credibility of the persons involved. All questions have been about the authenticity of the documents themselves. There have been questions raised about the unknown persons who supplied and vouched for the documents. But that, again, is a matter of the authenticity of the documents. The only credibility issue has been that raised by your refusal to provide documentation.

    Third, if declaring and substantiating that the documents are forgeries is not denying the truth of the story, I don’t know what is.

    Fourth, the power and financial resources of your critics are irrelevant, unless you are making the preposterous claim (read: lie) that CB-freaking-S is the David in this kerfuffle.
This goes beyond tu quoque, Dan. You are giving a good imitation of the hysterical snarling of the cornered narcissist.



  This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.
My Profile

Home  |  Archives