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

To: rod1

Rather and CBS made very much of the unimpeachable character of the source of these documents.

Now, that doesn't sound like they were describing Burkitt, does it? CBS simply wouldn't have known enough about the man to give him that kind of blanket endorsement.

Burkett may have been the forger, but it strains credulity to take him as the immediate source.


10 posted on 09/20/2004 7:54:23 AM PDT by John Valentine ("The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: John Valentine

Rather would call his daughter an unimpeachable source and as her father would find it hard to out her as the source. makes ya kinda go hmmmmmmmm


21 posted on 09/20/2004 8:16:07 AM PDT by donnab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: John Valentine

Indeed. But who WOULD have been an unimpeachable source? Surely, Cleland is no more unimpeachable than Burkett. Cleland didn't serve in the TANG. Where would HE get the documents, and wouldn't an ethical news organization checked HIS source? No, the answer is "it depends on what the meaning of 'unimpeachable' is." Strictly in the greedy, vengeance-lidded eye of the recipient.


38 posted on 09/20/2004 9:31:25 AM PDT by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | 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