Originally Posted by siberian khatru
I don't think they can outright admit they're forged. They'd have to reveal their source, and that might be even more devastating to them.
I think they're going to insist that the authenticity of the docs is ultimately "unknowable," i.e., reasonable people can disagree, but that they contain "larger truths" that must be addressed. I said from the beginning that someone's gonna argue that these docs were based on handwritten notes or, better yet, conversations that existed 30 years ago, and I think we're already seeing that.
BTW, my theory is that Rather's "unimpeachable source" for the docs is his daughter, who is active in Texas Democratic politics. She got them from Ben Barnes and vouched for their authenticity. That's why Rather is digging in on this. Just a theory.
To me the whole thing smells like the sKerry campaign. But I'm sure they have covered their tracks well enough if it came from them.
Claims are made, then the claims are cast in a very doubtful light, at least, and then they move to claiming that the real truth is unknowable, that it's none of your business, or that the claims themselves aren't the issue but some other topic is what you should pay attention to instead.
You're right, they won't outright admit they are forged. They have to salvage some vestige of credibility amongst... well, I guess people who haven't been paying attention.
They'll continue to obscure and attempt to move the documents from being the issue, and it's already happening like you are seeing. Claiming they were from handwritten notes, claiming they were notes of a converstaion. What's funny though, is that they will end up claiming the truth is unknowable, but use it to indict Bush's guard record which has got to be unknowable at this point, or they wouldn't need to be forging documents to 'prove' he didn't serve.
It will end up going the old familiar route... "it's not that there is any evidence, but we should cause a big hubub because of the seriousness of the charge".