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 “unimpeachmable” 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.