Well, Rather says the documents are "authentic"...what does that really mean??? All depends on what the definition of "is" is....here we go again.
Is there any reason why CBS could not be sued for liable, given their public assertion that they obtained the documents and know the source and they are not disclosing it?? Could they not be FORCED to provide that information in a court of law??? And what will the Bush administration's comments be about this????
"Well, Rather says the documents are "authentic"...what does that really mean??? All depends on what the definition of "is" is....here we go again. "
They are authentic documents... the authenthically forged kind.
While I understand sometimes reporters have sources that don't want to be known what could be the reason here? Were the documents obtained legally or stolen, where did they get them and when, who else has seen or heard of them and when? why did they wait until now to bring them up and not in 2000 or before?...the source needs to be on TV or the docs should not have been presented as genuine.
CBS also needs to have the family's point of view presented as they are the closest living relatives of the alleged author of the docs.
Rather is a fool and their is no fool like an old fool. He thinks the titanic will close its watertight doors and sail away like it didn't hit an iceberg, it will sink sooner or later hopefully taking him with it..