The source hasn't gone back on the story, just that he is no longer sure that the reference to the desecration was in the specific document he originally named to the Newsweek reporter. In other words, his current position is something to the effect of, "I am still certain that I did read it, but it may not be in that particular document; it may be in a different document."
So, you know, it's not the same thing as going back on the story. Sorry, no Dan Rather falling on his sword over some technicality this time. |
