Mapes, Rather and Selective Memory
I was listening to Fox News on the satellite radio earlier this evening as Bill O'Reilly was interviewing Mary Mapes. Mapes was, of course, trying to defend herself and was spewing words like mad. As is usual on talk shows, there wasn't much in the way of actual facts being bandied about. One particular comment she made, however, did set me off. When asked by O'Reilly if she believed the President was lying when he told O'Reilly that he had not used any influence to get into the TANG, she said that she believed that GWB was the victim of "selective memory."
That one comment brought me back to a year ago when this whole incident was fresh and in the public eye. The first time I looked at the supposed memos was just a short time after buckhead had made his initial comments and before Charles Johnson had made his comparison with a default Word document. It took me all of about one second to conclude that the document was a modern forgery. Why were buckhead and I (and a million other people) able to so quickly spot that it was bogus? Because we grew up in the World Before Computers. I couldn't tell you how many thousands of pages of official military correspondence I've typed on manual typewriters. It wasn't just the improper formatting and incorrect terminology that first popped out at me (that took a few seconds extra to sink in.) It was the total look and feel of the document that screamed word processor. Now I am not the only geezer that has made comments of this nature, but I don't recall any one else saying this: Dan Rather is another one of us oldsters. The man was a newspaper editor and print reporter when I was still in elementary school. He too has to have pounded out thousands upon thousands of pages on a manual typewriter. While Mary Mapes is much younger, she is still old enough to remember what manually typewritten pages look like. Mary and Dan. I may not be rich and/or famous, but I am not stupid.
I have no proof. I can only tell you that in my opinion these two "journalists" are lying through their teeth when they say they believe those documents were genuine. Or, perhaps, they are just the victims of "selective memory."
Thanks to The Mudville Gazette for the open post.
That one comment brought me back to a year ago when this whole incident was fresh and in the public eye. The first time I looked at the supposed memos was just a short time after buckhead had made his initial comments and before Charles Johnson had made his comparison with a default Word document. It took me all of about one second to conclude that the document was a modern forgery. Why were buckhead and I (and a million other people) able to so quickly spot that it was bogus? Because we grew up in the World Before Computers. I couldn't tell you how many thousands of pages of official military correspondence I've typed on manual typewriters. It wasn't just the improper formatting and incorrect terminology that first popped out at me (that took a few seconds extra to sink in.) It was the total look and feel of the document that screamed word processor. Now I am not the only geezer that has made comments of this nature, but I don't recall any one else saying this: Dan Rather is another one of us oldsters. The man was a newspaper editor and print reporter when I was still in elementary school. He too has to have pounded out thousands upon thousands of pages on a manual typewriter. While Mary Mapes is much younger, she is still old enough to remember what manually typewritten pages look like. Mary and Dan. I may not be rich and/or famous, but I am not stupid.
I have no proof. I can only tell you that in my opinion these two "journalists" are lying through their teeth when they say they believe those documents were genuine. Or, perhaps, they are just the victims of "selective memory."
Thanks to The Mudville Gazette for the open post.
posted by 74 (William Powell) at
6:58 PM
