Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (72278)	9/21/2004 10:29:10 AM
From: LindyBill	of 793917

WHAT DID YOU MEAN DAN? [Jonah Goldberg] - NRO Every journalists who gets a shot at asking Dan Rather about this story must get him to explain what he meant when he said his source was "unimpeachable." If he meant Burkett, Rather's a liar and a fraud. If he meant the person Burkett allegedly claimed they were from -- a Guard officer now in Europe by the name of George Conn -- he needs to explain how he could consider the source "unimpeachable" without ever having spoken to him. In fact, to say that your source is "unimpeachable" without ever having met him sounds likee pretty shoddy journalism. If I gave Rather some documents and said they were from Jimmy Hoffa, does that mean his source is me or Hoffa? It seems to me that the most plausible explanation of his "impeachable" declaration was an old-fashioned stonewall. And for that alone, he should go.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next