Reply #111: But what I don't get is

[CTyankee]

that Dan Rather could have used the proof that you and others who rebutted me obviously possessed to counterattack. If this is a lie, why didn't Rather defend himself with the facts?

I like to offer up cold, hard facts to my RW adversaries, even if they don't because then I can say "You do not have the facts, just hearsay, here are the facts." Otherwise, it's just a back and forth "Did not"/"Did so" sparring match.

At the time, I thought that the font issue was a plant by Rove, deliberately done to discredit a true story. I believed it was a set up. Some people were lined up to call Rather on the font issue after he went with the story, and we were left to scramble around. Rather's response "WEll, it was true anyway" just didn't hack it.

My point is we've got to do better with our facts, otherwise we are just lamely arguing about it almost a year after it happened and we got W again for prez.