Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: randita
Referring to someone as an "unimpeachable source" is hardly casting them in an unfavorable light.

How about Max Cleland calls Rather and tells him that a guy named Burkett has some documents... There's your "unimpeachable source" ...Cleland, not Burkett.

106 posted on 09/23/2004 6:17:44 AM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: Wil H
There's your "unimpeachable source" ...Cleland, not Burkett.

No way. Cleland has been a screw-up who carelessly blew off his own limbs. He rode a horse called sympathy to the Senate, then lost after Georgians saw what he was really like. Rather isn't that dumb so as to call Cleland "unimpeachable."

He rather calls himself "unimpeachable," but has lashed his reputation to Mapes. If she were to talk, Rather would be toast. He believes it's a safe bet. She won't got out without Dan going out, but they could go together if they have to. In such case, they intend to carry their secrets into their cushy retirement years.

Mapes wanted to be a Woodward or Bernstein and come around next time with Rather-like credentials to aid her liberal causes. Rather wanted to get back at the Bushes and prove he was just the guy to be able to do it (like the Mujahedeen with their Stingers bringing down the might Soviet transport planes Dan so exhilaratingly talked about). He compares himself to Uncle Walter and wanted his own Tet Offensive report to repaint the landscape.

HF

107 posted on 09/23/2004 7:51:22 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson