It has long been received wisdom among liberals that Bush skipped out on his guard commitments and used his family's influence to get special favors. Liberals believe this as devoutly as any conservative Christian believes in the truth of the tenets of his faith.
Because the allegations are obviously "true" to Rather,in his mind documents MUST exist that evidence their truth. But suppose some evil Bush lover destroyed the documents? In that case, there is no harm in recreating some memos that capture the essence of what the missing documents must have said.
Thus, Rather says slyly, "The story is true, there will be no retraction." And McAuliffe says, "The seriousness of the charges is more important than the documents that reference them."
If these had been saved until October 30, there would not have been time to discover and get the forgery out there before the election.
**
And McAuliffe says, "The seriousness of the charges is more important than the documents that reference them."**
Have you considered some other similarities this document episode has with the illegal leaking of the Clarence Thomas FBI files that lead to Anita Hill?
That leak was illegal. Nina Totenberg was the recipient of the leak. No leaker was ever identified, but it was widely speculated that a Kennedy assistant was behind the leak. Despite that fact that an illegal act had brought the info to light, the dems and the MSM pressed forward to smear Clarence Thomas with the information.
Maybe the same tactic was tried again by Kennedy/Kerry? Heck, nothing illegal about this disclosure, and once Rather reports it, the story will be out there to be discussed and pursued, and the actual source won't be an issue.
Or so they hoped.