...."USA TODAY obtained copies of the documents independently soon after the 60 Minutes segment aired Wednesday, from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations. The person refused to be identified out of fear of retaliation. It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades".....
I am confused, if the person refused to be identified, was that to USA today or did he identify himself to them then refuse to let them identify him to readers? Is this poorly written or am I just tired? Oh if he refused to be identified, how did they know he had knowledge of the Texas Air National Guard? Yes it sounds like Burkett with the "fear of retaliaton" & TANG comments, the where have the docs been for three decades.... What could he be afraid of, maybe a criminal investigation?
stone, if i were to use the logic that USA TODAY used (but they did NOT print it to their credit) - I could pretend to be a disgrunted Kerry campaigner and drop off some forged documents of my own explaining how Kerry is a closet communist.
I am not that bad with photoshop either. :)
No! Your right! It's a poorly written bunch of b.s. They constantly drop lines that lead the reader to the conclusion that all is true about the charges, but always unidentified or it was reported that, and then vague about the source!