[capitan_refugio]

You are right on the mark!

Dan Rather and CBS have few options to retain any sort of credibility. They need to produce the "original" documents for independent, expert verification. The need to name their "experts" who provided the stamp of approval over the six weeks they were working on the story.

If the documents are indeed a fraud, then Rather and CBS have another obligation. Is is customary for a report to "protect" a source if naming the source might cause some potential harm. I don't see how this could be the case. An unnamed source is unjustified, even if the documents are credible. However, if the source provides fraudulent information or lies about the information in the story, the reporter is under no obligation to protect the source. Rather and CBS should name the source as soon as the documents are proved, by the preponderance of the evidence, to be fakes.

Dan Rather - WHO GAVE YOU THESE FORGED DOCUMENTS? WHO PLANTED THIS FAKE STORY?

[GOPcapitalist]

The real reason, IMO, that they won't produce the originals is that they got it from the DNC or the Kerry camp or Barnes or some other agent in the Democratic Party. If they reveal the source they have a double embarrassment - first using forged documents, second showing clear favoritism to a political campaign. They also extend their shame onto Kerry and thereby hurt him in the polls, which they don't want to do. Rather will destroy his own before he'll let the Democrats go down.

But it may be out of his control already. The American Spectator just reported from an unnamed DNC source saying that Kerry provided the documents to CBS.

[CalRepublican]

That's exactly right. In fact, not disclosing the source here will encourage further fraud--the source will know there are no consequences.