Ho-hum -- another insistence by Dan Rather that his Bush National Guard story, dubious documents aside, was mostly true and corroborated, another dismissal by Brent Baker of the story as "discredited."
Hey, Brent, we have an idea: Instead of going through this stimulus-response kabuki dance every time Rather brings up the issue, how about the MRC engaging in some actual media research and provide a detailed analysis of Rather's story -- the entire story, not just the part involving the documents -- telling us once and for all what is "discredited" and what is not. (Much of the story did not hinge on those documents and has not been disproved, as we've noted.)
Ah, but it's just too easy to regurgitate long-memorized conservative talking points instead, isn't it, Brent?
UPDATE: Today's MRC front page linking to the CyberAlert version of Baker's item goes even further, calling the Bush National Guard story "bogus" and "thoroughly discredited." Prove it, Brent.