Dean Esmay points out that we need to be circumspect while attempting the next phase of the Memogate investigation, and attempting to determine the exact provenance of these documents. It's a much more delicate matter to name names when you're discussing individuals who are not public figures—the more so if they might be mentally disturbed.

Can some of this information be shared via e-mail while more of the facts are being nailed down?

Also, please keep in mind that the person who constructed these documents may well have done it as a joke (that would explain why they are so sloppy—they may not have been intended to deceive).

The focus should be on why Dan Rather accepted these memos at face value without more than a fig-leaf type of fact-checking job. It doesn't matter a whole lot where they actually came from, because they are just that bad: no one Dan Rather's age should have been taken in by them. After all, I'm sure he's seen a typed document or two in his day.

Let's be careful out there.

Posted by: Attila at 08:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.