[Boundless]

> ... there is still Danny Boy's "unimpeachable source"
> to be identified.

My theory on that, is the White House angle.

CBS gave the memos to the WH, who declined to impeach them.

CBS mistook rope-a-doping for confirmation.

Ergo, the author wasn't impeached,
so they must be unimpeachable.

[Cboldt]

I hadn't thought of CBS referring to the WH return of the documents as "receiving the documents from an unimpeachable source," but you may be right. CBS refers to the WH as having "released" the documents, as if the WH had any control in the first place.

I don't think they are that Clintonian with that sort of assertion, but we'll have to wait and see what develops.

[Enchante]

That would be sweet, if the rope-a-dope helped lead c-BS to not only go with the story but continue to insist they had an 'unimpeachable' source. I don't know how even Dan Rather could consider the scummy likes of Ben Barnes or Bill Burkett 'unimpeachable' -- if nothing else, they're obviously very partisan, as well as men of very dubious ethics (even before the forgery scandal).

I like the Max Cleland theory, too (both may be true, Rather may have believed that he had confirmations from both Cleland and the White House). The White House has played this perfectly, as far as we know, and if Cleland is involved c-BS will probably be forced to reveal that when enough document experts and journalists have declared that the documents are indefensible. c-BS will have to reveal its sources when enough people have accepted that the documents are discredited, I would hope.