KYLE SMITH: Wacko Dan Rather movie still insists forged Bush-National Guard documents were real:

Blanchett’s Mapes tells the committee that the documents had to be genuine because they contain military acronyms and jargon and show knowledge of Bush’s military service (which had been extensively covered in the media). It beggars belief, she claims, that anyone could go through so much trouble and then produce fake documents using Microsoft Word. She even insists she’s been persecuted for her political leanings (though she won’t admit to any): “You mean, am I now or have I ever been a liberal?” she asks the committee. At one point she declares, “Our story was about whether the president fulfilled his service. Nobody wants to talk about that. They want to talk about fonts and forgeries, and they hope to God the truth gets lost in the scrum!” Except Mapes couldn’t prove the president went AWOL without the documents.

I think the real-life Mapes admitting that even though she was holding herself out a news producer, she didn’t know who any of the players on the starboard side of the Blogosphere were in 2004, and then writing a column for Huffington Post in late October of 2008 on its alleged demise titled “The Monster is Dying” clears up where the legendarily “objective” producer’s political allegiances lie.  (As for Dan, his headlining at least one $200 a person fundraiser for the far left Nation magazine in 2009 is a clue to his own worldview.)

But as Smith notes, the line in Redford’s film that will likely cause it to be remembered as a 21st century camp classic is when Blanchett’s Mapes barks:

“Our story was about whether the president fulfilled his service. Nobody wants to talk about that. They want to talk about fonts and forgeries, and they hope to God the truth gets lost in the scrum!” Except Mapes couldn’t prove the president went AWOL without the documents.

“Our story was about whether the president fulfilled his service. Nobody wants to talk about that.”

Fair enough — but then those same rules apply regarding investigations of the youthful activities of the candidates running against the president as well; it was rather nice of Robert Redford & company to finally exonerate the exploratory efforts of the Swift Vets in 2004 and the late Andrew Breitbart and his associates in 2012.

By the way, in 2013, Redford was defending William Ayers’ Weathermen bombing the Pentagon. (Redford’s film bombed in theaters right around the same time that the Tsarnaev brothers were bombing the Boston Marathon in a macabre bit of synchronicity worthy of the New York Times’ own defense of Ayers.) This year, Redford is defending Dan Rather lying to millions of viewers. What far left institution will the 79-year old Redford champion next in his dotage?