Rahther admits they're phony. So, where DID they come from?

[Quartus]

Oh, dearie me. Mr. Rather seems to think the documents just MIGHT not be the real thing!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40534





So, where DID those documents come from? If they are phony, why protect the source?


http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn19.html

As the network put it last week, ''In accordance with longstanding journalistic ethics, CBS News is not prepared to reveal its confidential sources or the method by which '60 Minutes' Wednesday received the documents.'' But, once they admit the documents are fake, they can no longer claim ''journalistic ethics'' as an excuse to protect their source. There's no legal or First Amendment protection afforded to a man who peddles a fraud. You'd think CBS would be mad as hell to find whoever it was who stitched them up and made them look idiots.

So why aren't they? The only reasonable conclusion is that the source -- or trail of sources -- is even more incriminating than the fake documents.

So, like maybe they lead straight to John F. Kerry?


Or one of his Clintonista advisors?

 

[Fred Hansen]

Nothing left to do now but take the 60 Minutes piece to Cannes.

Is that a Palme d'Or I smell? Or maybe something else French?