Cub Driver wrote:
Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:

********************************
After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence
in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been
raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
documents in question."

*****************************

In the Washington Post, which has covered this story honestly from the
beginning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep20.html

I heard an interesting spin on this story from Dan Shore of NPR.
It was a little editorial rather than a report, but shows a bit
of left-leaning thinking on his part IMO.

The documents were probably generated from someone's "remembrance"
of the content of the real things, which have since vanished.

So in effect, even though the paper might not be real, the *content*
is correct.

Hope springs eternal.


SMH